Complaint
The programme included an item on the sentencing of Mr Alan Naylor and his company EzeParking (which offers car parking services to passengers embarking on cruises from Southampton) arising out of an occasion when he had made use of a car park owned by Southampton Council and removed a number of client’s cars without paying the parking charges. Mr Naylor complained that the item had been misleading in not mentioning his intention to appeal against the convictions; in incorrectly naming him as the owner of the first car shown leaving the car park in CCTV footage of the incident used in the item; and in giving the impression that his motive in removing the cars was to avoid payment and that it was for this that he and his company had been convicted. The ECU considered his complaint in the light of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s editorial standards of accuracy.
Outcome
An intention to appeal is not necessarily relevant to a report on court proceedings, and in this instance, noting that the appeal would have been in relation to charges to which Mr Naylor and his company had pleaded guilty, the ECU did not consider that viewers would have been misled in relation to the subject-matter of the item by the omission complained of. As to the ownership of the car, it was named as Mr Naylor’s in the list of court charges and the ECU understood that the previous keeper of the vehicle, in whose name it was still registered with DVLA, had confirmed to Southampton Council that he had sold it to Mr Naylor in November 2018. The complaint was not upheld on these points. The ECU agreed, however, that the item gave the impression complained of in relation to Mr Naylor’s motive, at least in part. As seen in CCTV footage used in the item, he had facilitated the removal of the cars by driving his own car through the exit barrier twice (taking advantage of the 15 minutes’ free parking allowed) and arranging for other vehicles to tailgate him on each occasion. This gave rise to charges of breach of consumer protection legislation, on the grounds that the procedure had put clients’ vehicles at risk of damage contrary to the assurance of safety and protection given on EzeParking’s website, and the original charges of fraud were not proceeded with. The studio introduction to the item, which said Mr Naylor and his company had “been fined after attempting to avoid paying for parking†may well have suggested to viewers that the convictions related to avoidance of payment, though the item contained a number of elements which sufficed to counteract that impression. What was not counteracted, however, was the impression that avoiding payment was Mr Naylor’s motive for acting as he did. As this was ultimately not an issue before the court, the outcome of the court proceedings provide no basis for attributing such a motive to Mr Naylor, and the item fell below the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s editorial standards of accuracy in doing so. The complaint was upheld in that respect.
Further action
The finding was reported to the senior management of Â鶹ԼÅÄ England and discussed with the programme-makers concerned.