Bristol Airport faces scrutiny over its parking enforcement practices as questions arise about the legality of its contract with Vehicle Control Services (VCS). The airport insists that its agreement with VCS, tasked with managing the safety and operation of its roadways and car parks, does not violate the Airports Act 1986. However, concerns have been raised about the enforceability of fines issued by VCS, which could result in hundreds of motorists being eligible for refunds if the contract is found to be in conflict with the legislation.
The Airports Act 1986 designates specific operational areas in which airports can control activities, including traffic management and parking enforcement. Similar bylaws are in place at Humberside Airport, where former local government officer Steve Williamson had a comparable experience with VCS. Williamson's wife successfully appealed a charge imposed by VCS, leading to its dismissal. He argues that the enforcement charge notice may conflict with the Airports Act 1986, a view shared by consumer lawyer Gary Rycroft.
"The legal rule under common law is that bylaws are only enforceable through fines and prosecution in the magistrates court," – Gary Rycroft.
Rycroft contends that private parking invoices issued by VCS at Bristol Airport contradict the enforcement regime outlined in the Airports Act 1986.
"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." – Gary Rycroft.
The ability of VCS to enforce civil demands hinges on whether the roads in question fall under the jurisdiction of Bristol Airport's bylaws. Derek Millard-Smith, an approved solicitor to the British Parking Association, has also questioned the legality of these charges.
"Prohibitions at car parks and traffic areas are determined by the landowner and not the company enforcing them," – Derek Millard-Smith.
He further elaborates on the evolving nature of such prohibitions, emphasizing safety and congestion management.
"Prohibitions arise for a variety of reasons which can evolve over time through unfortunate incidents and regular risk assessment. These prohibition reasons can include avoiding obstruction/congestion, through ensuring pedestrian safety, to managing security concerns (which has become an increased risk at airports)." – Derek Millard-Smith.
Motorist Dave Fitzheslop received a £100 demand from VCS for stopping outside designated pickup zones at Bristol Airport, which later increased to £170. The Guardian's attempts to locate a map delineating the roads governed by the airport's bylaws have been unsuccessful, further complicating the issue.
"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." – Derek Millard-Smith.
While VCS has not responded to repeated requests for comment, Bristol Airport maintains that its contract with VCS is legitimate and confidential. The airport asserts that its bylaws are similar to those at Humberside Airport, implying compliance with the Airports Act 1986.