Shell Gatwick North

windsmurf

I emailed generalpublicenquiries-uk@shell.com, addressed to Mr van Beurden (CEO? I think I pulled a name from the annual statement)

You'll get a response from UK Retail Operations.

windsmurf

Thanks for the steer Coupon Mad. Seems ridiculous that there is a 2000 character limit. The following is 1996 including spaces!

I've scaled back the GDPR/ANPR stuff and focused on the basics. I still think this is interesting though. Having not broken the law, DVLA have no right to hand over RK's details. I may look into filing a complaint against DVLA and ECP for GDPR breach.

Green light on the following?

Refs. refer to ECP evidence Pages (P) & timestamps XX:YY:ZZ

Signs
Evidence dated 19/04/18 is not proof of signage present on x/y/18.
Map provided proves that no signs are visible from within the forecourt area where vehicle was located,nor between the forecourt & the shop (see vehicle in parking bay alongside shop in image 15:40:41 & 25:42:02 far left).No signs visible in 15:42:02.All operator signs are located away from forecourt & in the segregated parking areas,closed at time of visit.
P30 shows No Parking & hatchings before the forecourt.15:42:02 shows these hatchings are not present on the forecourt.
P23,24,25,28,29,30:Text illegible
15:40:10:Unlit entrance sign,unreadable at night without camera flash, or on arrival considering direction of travel.Unclear if sign applies to traffic passing to right or left of the bollarded island-contrary to COP 18.2.Sign does not state fee.Disproportionately small compared to nearby Shell signs.
P29 shows lit signs.These are located in the segregated car park (see 15:41:37) & were behind a closed barrier so irrelevant to this case.

Payment
P13:ECP state “all drivers are required to purchase a valid pay and display ticket for the duration of their stay.”ECP provided no means for the driver to pay. By definition driver was unable to outstay the period paid for!

ANPR
P12 Images show a license plate and shadows of a car-nothing that proves where that image was taken (no background recognizable as the garage in question).
P13 Item 6 states “data produced”,indicating ECP HAVE BROKEN THE LAW through breach of GDPR & breached COP.
NAAS compliant proves equipment will reliably identify registrations.It is not evidence of accuracy of date/time system.ECP have failed to prove accuracy of estimated duration vehicle was on site.

Contract
ECP refuse to provide full contract & only show 1 Appendix.ECP have failed to prove landowner authority as key terms and information is missing (eg precise boundaries).All breaches of COP are in breach of contract.





Thank you kindly :T

The_Deep

IMO, a 20 minute limit in a petrol station is unreasonable, especially if you have to queue to fill up, queue to pay, buy a sandwich, ask directions, purchase windscreen wiper blades, your card is rejected, the till roll needs changing, and the cashier does not speak English.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

ToddlingtonMass

Thanks, appreciated.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

IMO, a 20 minute limit in a petrol station is unreasonable, especially if you have to queue to fill up, queue to pay, buy a sandwich, ask directions, purchase windscreen wiper blades, your card is rejected, the till roll needs changing, and the cashier does not speak English. .

I disagree. After driving for many, many years I have NEVER spent 20 minutes or more refuelling. I do not believe that any reasonable person would give credence to that, so I would not seek to use that argument.

Much better to concentrate on signage and other technical points.

The_Deep

After driving for many, many years I have NEVER spent 20 minutes or more refuelling.

It happens fairly frequently at Morrisons in Reading. Possibly because they are cheaper than others.

I do not believe that any reasonable person would give credence to that

I think that they would

I would not seek to use that argument.

It was not intended as an argument for OP, just my opinion as to why 20 minutes is insufficient time to buy fuel in certain locations.

windsmurf

Unsuccessful with POPLA: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75011823#Comment_75011823

Now I can ignore or Pay-Up.

In the event that this became a court matter I take it this would be deemed winnable?

Also, thoughts on the following statement? Where does law state that RK can be pursued for a fine?

"I was not driving.

If you believe otherwise I politely refer you to the legal principles based upon 3rd party contract rights, which essentially states, I can not be responsible for other persons whom create legally binding contracts, such as the driver did in this instance.

Furthermore, I am not liable as the vehicle owner."

The_Deep

Where does law state that RK can be pursued for a fine?

It is not a fine, it is an invoice for damages allegedly suffered as a result of a breach of contract. They can take you to a Civil Court where a judge will consider their claim under Contract Law and POFA.

I can not be responsible for other persons whom create legally binding contracts, such as the driver did in this instance.

Yes you can, read POFA.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised ccrime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by early in the New Year.

Coupon-mad

I can not be responsible for other persons whom create legally binding contracts, such as the driver did in this instance.

Yes you can, read POFA.

Agreed. Blame the Government for rotten legislation in 2012, pushed by the BPA.

The NEWBIES thread has the POFA as a link, for those who want to 'dig deeper'. But then again, I would relax and sit tight! This is ECP and I've ignored them twice over myself, and they never sue.

windsmurf

I read in some admittedly old posts that you can complain of procedural impropropriety to the POPLA main adjudicator to challenge the fact that main points of my complaint have not been addressed by the assessor (e.g. the fact that there are no signs located in the forecourt).

Is this still a thing?