Are drivers that pick up passengers outside of the agreed-upon, paid-for drop-off and pickup zone of Bristol Airport's contractor's private fines unenforceable?

Based on an accurate interpretation of the airport's bylaws by a prominent consumer lawyer and an astute Guardian reader, it appears like they might be.

If they are correct, hundreds of drivers—possibly even more—who paid the £100 demands for stopping outside the approved pickup zones at Bristol airports would be entitled to reimbursements.

Bristol Airport has refuted this and stated that it is certain that the contract is carried out in compliance with all applicable laws.

In August, Guardian Money featured the case of Dave Fitzheslop, who was sent a £100 demand, later increased to £170, by Bristol airport’s parking contractor, VCS. He had stopped at a red traffic light at the airport on his way to pick up his wife. At that exact moment, he says, she came out of the terminal, spotted him sitting there and jumped into the car. Once the light turned green they exited the airport and drove home.

When an enforcement charge notice arrived, he assumed that there had been a mistake as the CCTV photos clearly showed him stopped at the red light. However, his appeal was twice turned down, and the airport has since defended VCS’s approach.

After the Guardian piece was published we were contacted by Steve Williamson, a former local government officer whose wife had a similar experience a few years ago at the hands of VCS, this time at Humberside airport.

“To help with the appeal I looked into the means by which airports can control activities including parking on their land,” he told Guardian Money.

“In the case of Humberside they had adopted bylaws under the Airports Act 1986, which designated the operational area in which they could control activities. I am not a lawyer but it was clear from reading the legislation that the power to impose charges for non-compliance was through the courts for breach of bylaws, and not through a contract parking charge between the customer and the airport authority’s agent.”

His wife made this fact clear in her appeal to VCS and he says the charge was dropped. Bristol has very similar bylaws in place.

Guardian Money also contacted the consumer lawyer Gary Rycroft, a partner at Lancaster-based Joseph A Jones & Co Solicitors, who agreed with Williamson.

“The legal rule under common law is that bylaws are only enforceable through fines and prosecution in the magistrates court,” he said. . “My view is that private parking invoices issued by VCS on behalf of Bristol airport are at odds with – and indeed in direct conflict with – the prosecution and enforcement regime set out in the Airports Act 1986, and for that reason I do not believe they are enforceable.”

VCS, the parking contractor at the centre of dispute, has not responded to repeated requests for comment.

VCS, the parking contractor at the centre of dispute, has not responded to repeated requests for comment.

A spokesperson for Bristol airport told Guardian Money: “The airport has a legitimate confidential contract with the operator to manage the safety and operation of our roadways and car parks. We are confident that the contract operates in accordance with the agreement and the relevant legislation.”

Derek Millard-Smith, the approved solicitor to the British Parking Association and its members, of which VCS is not one, said the ability of the parking firm to enforce these civil demands will probably depend on whether the roads in question are part of the zone that is governed by the airport’s bylaws.

Millard-Smith, a partner at JMW Solicitors, said he had not been asked to examine Bristol’s situation so was unable to offer an opinion.

"Landowners, not the companies enforcing them, determine prohibitions at parking lots and traffic areas," he continued. "Prohibitions might develop over time as a result of unfavourable events and ongoing risk assessment for a number of reasons. These prohibitions can be implemented for a variety of reasons, such as preventing obstruction or congestion, guaranteeing the safety of pedestrians, or handling security issues (which are becoming more common at airports).

The roads and areas covered by the rules are not shown on any map that The Guardian has been able to locate. The airport has not responded to our request for one.

SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN