Silly move, identifying the driver but all is not lost. There is no contract with the driver because the signs are prohibitory. There is nothing on offer.
Even though the keeper admitted to being the driver (duh!), the claim, when it comes, will still have no foundation because there is no contract here to breach. The airport signs say “No stopping” and then threaten £100 if you stop. That is a prohibition, not an offer.
Contract law needs an offer that a person can accept and receive some benefit in return. Here nothing is offered at all; the message is “don’t do it”. Doing the forbidden thing cannot turn a prohibition into a paid-for contract. At most it would be a technical trespass, which only the landowner could pursue for actual loss, usually nothing.
There is also no real chance to agree to anything. These signs sit on a live airport approach and a roundabout. A driver must watch the road, not pull over to read complex wording. Without a fair opportunity to read and choose, there is no agreement by conduct.
A stall is not a choice; it is an unavoidable safety stop. Contract liability depends on a voluntary act. Road safety rules require the driver to remain where the car dies until it is safe to move. An involuntary stop cannot sensibly be treated as the driver choosing to buy a £100 “service”.
This is nothing like the Supreme Court’s
Beavis case. In
Beavis the motorist got something in return (free parking time) and the charge protected turnover. Here there is no permission to stop at all and no facility provided. The £100 is a deterrent, not a price for a service.
The NtK also undermines their position. They call this a “period of parking” but accuse “stopping where stopping is prohibited”. Stopping briefly on a roundabout is not parking. On top of that, the notice waves around keeper liability where the site is airport land under byelaws. While keeper liability no longer matters once the driver is known, the misuse of PoFA shows the template nature of the claim and weakens credibility.
In any claim, they would have to prove a valid contract, prove clear, prominent signage that offered terms, prove the driver had a fair chance to agree before the event, and explain why an involuntary safety stop amounts to a deliberate acceptance of a charge. They would also have to show they have authority from the landowner to sue for a contractual sum rather than for trespass.
Experience is that these “no stopping at airports” claims usually unravel on those points. Even if a judge disagreed on liability, the common £70 add-on is not recoverable in small claims, which further cuts down any exposure.
Plainly put: this is a vexatious private firm of ex-clampers trying to levy a penalty where contract law does not fit. A judge is likely to see it as a speculative invoice based on a prohibition, not a bargain. Hence, there is still a solid leg to stand on despite the driver admission.
Come back when you receive a response to your response to the LoC.
