Motorists just trying to buy fuel could end up paying a £100 “parking charge”—and now the Competition and Markets Authority is asking whether that’s fair.
By John Donovan (Commentary)
Imagine this.
You pull into a Shell petrol station to fill up your car. The forecourt is busy. There is a queue at the pumps. You patiently wait your turn, buy your fuel, perhaps grab a coffee or use the car wash, and drive away.
A few days later, a demand for £100 lands on your doormat.
Not because you failed to pay for fuel.
Not because you abandoned your vehicle.
But because the cameras decided you had been on the forecourt for too long.
Welcome to Britain’s increasingly automated parking industry.
And now the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is asking whether some of these practices breach consumer protection law.
Shell and BP’s CCTV Revolution
The latest controversy follows agreements by Shell and BP to use private parking operators to monitor forecourts using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.
According to the CMA, the investigation focuses on Euro Car Parks, one of the UK’s largest parking operators.
The watchdog is examining:
- whether it is fair to issue parking charges to motorists simply queueing for fuel;
- whether drivers using services such as car washes are being unfairly penalised;
- whether the company’s appeals process complies with consumer protection law.
The CMA stressed that no conclusions have yet been reached and that the investigation is still at an early stage.
That distinction matters.
But the very fact that Britain’s competition regulator considers the issue serious enough to launch a formal investigation should concern everyone who uses modern petrol stations.
From Customer to Revenue Stream?
There is something deeply ironic about the situation.
Fuel retailers already earn money from:
- fuel sales;
- convenience stores;
- coffee;
- food;
- car washes;
- loyalty schemes.
Now some motorists fear the forecourt itself has become another potential profit centre—not through selling products, but through parking enforcement.
The optics are dreadful.
No customer expects a visit to a petrol station to resemble entering a privately monitored security zone where every minute is measured by cameras.
The Numbers Are Astonishing
The figures released alongside the CMA’s announcement are extraordinary.
During the final nine months of 2025, private parking companies issued approximately 13.1 million parking tickets.
That represents a 19% increase on the equivalent period in 2024.
Each notice can demand up to £100.
At that rate, the theoretical face value of new parking charges issued every day approaches £4.8 million.
Not every charge will ultimately be paid.
Not every charge will be upheld.
But the sheer industrial scale of Britain’s private parking enforcement industry has become impossible to ignore.
Euro Car Parks Already Under Pressure
This is not Euro Car Parks’ first encounter with the CMA.
Earlier this year the regulator imposed a £473,000 penalty after concluding that the company had failed for several months to comply with legally required requests for information.
Euro Car Parks has appealed that penalty.
Separately, the company reportedly sought a High Court injunction to prevent being publicly named in connection with the investigation, but that application was refused.
Again, these matters remain subject to legal processes.
Five Minutes?
One of the most striking findings highlighted by the CMA is that some motorists have reportedly received parking charges because payment was not made within just five minutes of entering a car park.
Five minutes.
That scarcely allows time to:
- locate a space;
- read the signs;
- understand the terms;
- decide whether to stay;
- make payment.
Now transpose that mindset onto a busy petrol forecourt.
Queues form naturally.
Customers cannot simply overtake other vehicles.
If waiting to buy fuel becomes legally indistinguishable from overstaying in a car park, something has arguably gone badly wrong.
Shell’s Reputation Risk
Shell itself is not the subject of the CMA investigation.
The investigation concerns Euro Car Parks.
However, Shell chose to introduce these monitoring arrangements at many forecourts.
That means customers experiencing these problems may associate the resulting frustration with the Shell brand, regardless of who technically issued the parking notice.
Corporate partnerships always involve shared reputational risk.
Consumers Expect Common Sense
Technology should improve customer experience.
It should not punish customers for circumstances beyond their control.
A driver waiting patiently in a fuel queue is hardly abusing a parking facility.
The CMA appears to recognise that distinction may have become blurred.
Emma Cochrane, the CMA’s Executive Director of Consumer Protection, put it plainly:
“Parking companies must treat motorists fairly at all stages, and a clear and consistent appeals process must be at the heart of this.”
She added:
“It’s time for all private parking operators to comply with consumer law or risk action from the CMA.”
Those remarks apply well beyond one company.
Bigger Questions
The investigation raises wider issues about the growing automation of everyday life.
ANPR cameras never get tired.
Algorithms never exercise discretion.
Yet fairness often depends upon context.
A family delayed because pumps are occupied…
An elderly driver moving slowly…
Someone waiting for an available disabled bay…
A queue caused entirely by the retailer’s own forecourt layout…
Should software automatically convert those circumstances into a £100 demand?
That is precisely the kind of question regulators now appear determined to examine.
Conclusion
No findings have yet been made against Euro Car Parks.
Shell is not accused of wrongdoing simply because its forecourts use private parking management.
But the CMA investigation highlights an uncomfortable reality.
When customers stop at a petrol station, they expect to buy fuel—not inadvertently enter a legal dispute over how long they spent waiting in line.
If technology designed to improve efficiency instead leaves ordinary motorists feeling ambushed, then the industry’s licence to operate risks eroding one £100 notice at a time.
Sir Henri Deterding & John Donovan
Sir Henri Deterding: “Ach, John, in my day we wished customers to queue because business was good. We did not invoice them for their patience.”
John Donovan: “Now the queue may be more profitable than the petrol.”
Sir Henri: “Remarkable. Soon they will charge motorists for thinking about buying fuel.”
John Donovan: “The CMA seems to be wondering whether they’ve already started.”
DISCLAIMER
This article is an opinion and commentary piece based on publicly reported information, including the CMA’s announcement and contemporary media reports. The CMA’s investigation into Euro Car Parks is ongoing and no findings of wrongdoing have been made. Shell plc and BP are referenced because their forecourts use private parking management arrangements discussed in public reporting; they are not the subject of the CMA investigation described above. Nothing in this article constitutes legal or financial advice. The site-wide disclaimer applicable to royaldutchshellplc.com also applies.
*This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment, the Shell DPA Files, "Shell and the Spies", the Shell Leaks files, as well as books written and published by John Donovan - Kindle eBooks. Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud. Toxic History of Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record — 550+ Articles, 110 Books, 40 Years. *All created and supported by internet wizz, Nick Gill.
