Free Traffic Legal Advice

The Incompatibility of Contractual Parking Enforcement with Statutory Byelaws

The issuance of Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) by Vehicle Control Services (VCS) for alleged contractual breaches on airport roads governed by statutory byelaws raises significant legal issues. This situation frequently arises at airports such as Bristol Airport, Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA), and Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA), where VCS enforces stopping restrictions using assumed contractual frameworks, despite the presence of statutory byelaws.

Statutory Byelaws and Public Law Jurisdiction

Airport roads are typically subject to statutory byelaws made under the Airports Act 1986, which regulate conduct such as stopping, driving, and parking. These byelaws are public law instruments approved by the Secretary of State and can only be enforced via their prescribed mechanisms, usually prosecution in a magistrates' court for breaches. 

When specific behavior, such as stopping in a restricted zone, is regulated by byelaws, this statutory framework supersedes any implied contractual arrangement. Attempts by VCS to enforce stopping restrictions through assumed contracts amount to circumventing statutory law, which is legally unsustainable. 

Prohibitive Signage and Contract Formation 

To establish a valid contractual claim, there must be an offer of terms that a driver can accept. However, signage at these airports often displays prohibitive language, such as "No Stopping at Any Time." This type of signage does not offer terms for acceptance; it communicates a prohibition. Courts have repeatedly determined that prohibitive signage cannot form the basis of a contractual relationship. 

Furthermore, the signs enforced by VCS do not reference the governing airport byelaws. This omission creates a misleading impression that VCS has contractual authority to issue PCNs for prohibited conduct. In reality, such conduct falls within the jurisdiction of the byelaws and must be addressed through statutory enforcement mechanisms. 

Misrepresentation and Unfair Practices

At various airports, including Bristol Airport, LJLA, and LBA, VCS frequently argues that airport byelaws are "obsolete," thereby justifying their reliance on assumed contracts. This claim is not only factually incorrect but also constitutes a misrepresentation under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs). Byelaws remain valid and enforceable until formally revoked, replaced, or invalidated by a court or updated legislation. Misleading drivers about the applicable legal framework is an unfair business practice that undermines the legitimacy of VCS’s claims. 

Challenges to VCS’s Enforcement Claims

If VCS pursues enforcement under contract law on byelaw-governed land, their claim should be challenged on several grounds: 

1. Authority: VCS must demonstrate their authority to issue contractual demands on land regulated by statutory byelaws. 

2. Contract Validity: The alleged contract is invalid due to the prohibitive nature of the signage and the absence of any offer for acceptance. 

3. Omission of Byelaws: Failure to reference the byelaws on signage further undermines the validity of their claims.
 
4. Misrepresentation: Claims that byelaws are obsolete or irrelevant should be contested as breaches of the CPUTRs. 

Conclusion

VCS’s reliance on assumed contractual frameworks to enforce stopping restrictions on byelaw-governed land is fundamentally flawed. Prohibitive signage that omits references to the applicable byelaws creates a misleading basis for enforcement, leaving VCS’s claims legally untenable. 

This issue is not limited to Bristol Airport; it equally applies to LJLA, LBA, and other airports where VCS operates. Drivers who receive PCNs in such circumstances should challenge the claims, exposing their unlawful nature and safeguarding the rights of motorists against predatory enforcement practices.