Stung with a parking fine for an 18-second airport stop to tackle a wasp
Two motorists were fined £100 each for stopping for just 18 seconds in red zones at Leeds Bradford and Bristol airports to deal with wasps and read signage, respectively.
Ann Tims was driving her car when a wasp began buzzing in front of her face, making it impossible to drive safely. She had to stop in a red zone at Leeds Bradford airport for just 18 seconds to deal with the insect.
The result was a £100 parking charge notice (PCN) sent to her wife, the registered keeper, by Vehicle Control Services (VCS). The company refused to cancel the fine despite CCTV footage showing the brief stop.
Tims contacted Leeds Bradford airport, which ordered VCS to refund the charge as a gesture of goodwill. The airport stated that if drivers contacted it directly, it would have intervened in the case.
Reading the rules
In a similar case, a driver named SM from Pontyclun in Wales was billed £100 by VCS after stopping for 18 seconds at Bristol airport. She had prepaid for three days of parking and wanted to read the terms and conditions on a sign in the no-stopping area.
SM’s appeal was rejected by VCS, which argued it is the motorist’s responsibility to be familiar with the terms and conditions displayed on signage. The Independent Appeals Service also upheld the rejection, concluding that red-route restrictions prohibit stopping under any circumstances.
The sign SM was studying contained 24 lines of information in varying font sizes. She asked whether it is reasonable to expect a motorist to read such a substantial amount of information while their vehicle is moving.
Is it reasonable to expect a motorist to read a substantial amount of car park information while their vehicle is moving, particularly when that information is relevant to determining whether they are entering the correct car park?
Legal loophole
Bristol Airport refunded the charge after reviewing the circumstances, noting that the customer had not contacted them to make them aware of the situation. VCS was contacted for a comment but did not respond.
There is a legal loophole that means neither AW nor SM were obliged to pay the charge. Airports are "statutory land" governed by bylaws and are not subject to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which governs private parking enforcement in England and Wales.
The act allows private parking operators to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for charges. There is no such keeper liability on statutory land, so if the keeper declines to confirm who was driving, the parking operator is powerless.
The small print of the PCNs sent to the spouses of AW and SM "invite" them to pay up or name the driver. Anyone in this situation should reply stating that as an airport is statutory land, they are not liable as the vehicle keeper and not obliged to name the driver.
Government crackdown
The government has announced a crackdown on private parking charges. When the new official code of practice takes effect, charges will be cancelled on appeal for things such as stopping briefly because of a medical emergency.
This new rule could provide a future get-out clause for motorists penalised for reasonable stops on land that does fall under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The date for the new code of practice to take effect has not yet been announced.
Related
