Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at a traffic light.

Fruitcake

From the airport website,

Bristol Airport Ownership

---

Bristol Airport is owned by Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP).

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan owns the largest number of shares and has been an investor in our airport since 2001.

© Copyright Bristol Airport 2024

BA Ltd may be the landholder, and there may be some obfuscation with the airport being owned by multiple entities holding different numbers of shares, and a foreign investment company using a UK company to register their (OTPP's) ownership, but today, the website clearly states the site is owned by OTPP.

It would need someone with a better legal understanding of how foreign ownership words than most of us on this forum.

I believe BAL are wrong about their comments regarding VCS passing personal data to Excel, irrespective of who owns what. They are separate accounting companies. I suggest you complain to the ICO and ask them for their thoughts. Sadly though you won't get an answer this year.

I also believe they are wrong about the driver being liable for the actions of a pedestrian. Once the passenger door was open, which I believe was either whilst the traffic light was red, or whilst other pedestrians were still crossing in front of the vehicle, and therefore outwith the control of the driver, the driver would have had to wait for the door to be closed until it was safe to drive off again.

Imnotpaying

Fruitcake said:

BA Ltd may be the landholder, and there may be some obfuscation with the airport being owned by multiple entities holding different numbers of shares, and a foreign investment company using a UK company to register their (OTPP's) ownership, but today, the website clearly states the site is owned by OTPP.

It would need someone with a better legal understanding of how foreign ownership words than most of us on this forum.

I agree with all you say, @Fruitcake,  but it makes it difficult to include, in one's defence, a definitive statement to the effect that BAL don't own the airport land.  How would a mere layman defend it in the claims court if presented with a copy of the Land Registry entry?  I've obviously read what it says on the BAL website, but the claimant could simply argue that it is incorrect.  Without legal clarity, I'm tempted to leave the ownership thing out. There's plenty of other points to argue.

Thanks for your other comments.  They are already covered in my draft response to LOC, not yet complete.

Imnotpaying

Fruitcake said:

BA Ltd may be the landholder, and there may be some obfuscation with the airport being owned by multiple entities holding different numbers of shares, and a foreign investment company using a UK company to register their (OTPP's) ownership, but today, the website clearly states the site is owned by OTPP.

It would need someone with a better legal understanding of how foreign ownership words than most of us on this forum.

I agree with all you say, @Fruitcake,  but it makes it difficult to include, in one's defence, a definitive statement to the effect that BAL don't own the airport land.  How would a mere layman defend it in the claims court if presented with a copy of the Land Registry?  I've obviously read what it says on the BAL website, but the claimant could simply argue that it is incorrect.  Without legal clarity, I'm tempted to leave the ownership thing out. There's plenty of other points to argue.

Thanks for your other comments.  They are already covered in my draft response to LOC, not yet complete.

Fruitcake

I would state the above and include a dated pdf image of the airport webpage in my evidence at the WS stage, and let the judge decide who is the landowner and with whom VCS have a contract.

LDast

What was the lawful bass for VCS sharing your data with Excel? In what manner did VCS inform you that your data may be shared with Excel and potentially third parties such as debt collectors? GDPR requires clear and transparent communication about how personal data will be used and for what purposes. If this information isn’t provided, it is a violation of GDPR’s transparency obligations.

Here is my understanding of the situation in this case as far as liability and VCSs unlawful behaviour:

1. No Contract Formed Due to Prohibitive Signage

VCS, the subsidiary company, has issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) for a breach of contract at Bristol Airport, namely for stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. However, the validity of this is fundamentally flawed:

• Prohibitive Signage Cannot Form a Contract: If the signage at Bristol Airport is prohibitive (e.g., "No Stopping"), it does not constitute an offer that the driver can accept by conduct. Under contract law, for a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. Prohibitive signage merely prohibits certain behaviour and does not provide terms for a contract to be formed. Therefore, no contract can exist between VCS and the driver.

• No Breach of Contract: Since no contract was formed due to the prohibitive signage, the driver cannot be held liable for a breach of contract. This undermines VCS’s entire justification for issuing the PCN and their processing of personal data.

2. Statutory Control at Bristol Airport and No Keeper Liability

Bristol Airport is land subject to statutory control (such as by-laws), which means that PoFA does not apply. This has significant implications for VCS’s actions:

• No Keeper Liability Under PoFA: PoFA allows private parking companies to hold the registered keeper liable for parking charges if the identity of the driver is not known, but only on private land. As Bristol Airport is under statutory control, PoFA cannot be used to pursue the keeper for liability. VCS’s attempt to hold the keeper liable is unlawful under these circumstances.

• VCS Can Only Pursue the Driver: Since PoFA does not apply, VCS can only pursue the driver of the vehicle for the alleged breach. However, the keeper has declined to identify the driver, and VCS has no legal mechanism to compel the keeper to reveal this information. Furthermore, since no contract was formed due to prohibitive signage, the driver is not liable either.

  
  

3. Lawful Request for Keeper’s Data from the DVLA with Limitations

While VCS can lawfully request the keeper’s details from the DVLA under the assumption that they might ask the keeper to identify the driver, the process is still flawed:

• Requesting Keeper Details: VCS is entitled to request the keeper's details from the DVLA to contact the keeper and ask for the driver’s details. However, VCS must operate within the bounds of GDPR and the terms of the KADOE contract when doing so. Importantly, the keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and VCS cannot pursue the keeper as if they are automatically liable for the PCN.

• No Keeper Liability under PoFA: As Bristol Airport is land under statutory control, PoFA does not apply, and VCS cannot use it to transfer liability to the keeper if the driver remains unidentified. Therefore, once the keeper declines to name the driver, VCS cannot pursue the keeper further, since the legal grounds to hold the keeper liable do not exist in this situation.

• Unlawful Pursuit of the Keeper: If VCS continues to pursue the keeper after the keeper declines to identify the driver, they are acting unlawfully. They would have no legal basis to continue their pursuit because, without PoFA, there is no provision to hold the keeper responsible.

o lawful reason to request the keeper’s details, thereby breaching the KADOE contract and GDPR.

4. Unlawful Data Sharing with Excel (Parent Company)

After VCS obtained the keeper’s data from the DVLA, they shared this data with their parent company, Excel. While the initial request for the keeper’s details from the DVLA was lawful, VCS’s subsequent sharing of the data with Excel still raises concerns under GDPR:

• Lawful Basis for Sharing Data: Even though the request for the keeper’s details from the DVLA was lawful, VCS must have a separate lawful basis under GDPR to share that data with Excel. The fact that VCS lawfully obtained the data does not automatically justify sharing it with third parties, including their parent company. Under GDPR, data can only be shared with another entity if there is a valid legal basis for doing so, such as consent or legitimate interest.

• Failure to Inform the Keeper: VCS is required to inform the keeper of how their personal data will be processed and with whom it will be shared. If VCS did not inform the keeper clearly, at the point of data collection or soon after, that their data would be shared with Excel, this would breach GDPR’s transparency and fairness obligations. Without proper notification, the sharing of data with Excel should be deemed non-compliant.

• Legitimate Interest: If VCS claims legitimate interest as the basis for sharing data with Excel, they must demonstrate that the data sharing is necessary and proportionate to achieving that interest, while ensuring it does not override the rights of the data subject (the keeper). If this is not adequately justified, it will still result in a breach of GDPR, even if the initial data collection was lawful.

5. VCS’s Pursuit of the Keeper is Unlawful

VCS is pursuing the keeper for the PCN despite the fact that:

• PoFA Does Not Apply: Since Bristol Airport is subject to by-laws and statutory control, PoFA cannot be used to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. VCS’s attempt to hold the keeper liable is legally baseless.

• The Keeper Has Declined to Identify the Driver: The keeper is not obligated to identify the driver, and VCS cannot legally compel them to do so. Pursuing the keeper without a lawful basis, particularly when no contract was formed with the driver, is unlawful.

6. Potential GDPR Breaches

The entire process involves multiple breaches of GDPR, including:

• Unlawful Data Sharing: VCS unlawfully shared the keeper’s data with Excel, without a lawful reason to do so.
  
• Failure to Inform the Keeper: VCS likely failed to adequately inform the keeper about how their personal data would be processed and shared, breaching GDPR’s transparency requirements.

How the Process is Flawed

1. No Contractual Basis for the PCN: The prohibitive signage means no contract was formed between VCS and the driver, invalidating the PCN.
2. Unlawful Data Sharing: VCS unlawfully shared the keeper’s data with Excel, in breach of GDPR.
   
3. Failure to Inform the Keeper: VCS likely did not provide the required information to the keeper about how their personal data would be processed and shared, violating GDPR’s transparency requirements.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the entire process undertaken by VCS and Excel is flawed. VCS issued a PCN based on an invalid assumption that a contract was formed, obtained the Keepers DVLA data and then unlawfully shared that data with Excel. VCS’s attempt to hold the keeper liable under PoFA is invalid due to the statutory control at Bristol Airport, and the processing of the keeper’s data represents a breach of GDPR. The keeper has no obligation to identify the driver, and VCS has no lawful basis to continue pursuing them.

Maybe point all this out to Bristol Airport.

Imnotpaying

Good plan @Fruitcake.  Thanks

LDast

Here is my take on the "ownership" issue and I am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong:

The relationship between OTPP and Bristol Airport Ltd, and the idea of "owning the airport" but not the land, seems confusing. It boils down to the distinction between owning a business entity (which manages the operations of the airport) versus owning the land that the business operates on.

1. Shareholding and Business Ownership (OTPP's Role)

• OTPP owns Bristol Airport Ltd by holding the majority of the shares in the company. This makes OTPP the financial and controlling owner of Bristol Airport Ltd.
• By owning the company, OTPP indirectly controls the business operations of the airport, including all the assets, infrastructure, and facilities (e.g., terminals, runways, parking areas) that belong to the company. These operational assets, collectively referred to as "the airport," are owned by the company (Bristol Airport Ltd), which is, in turn, owned by OTPP through its shareholding.

2. Land Ownership (Bristol Airport Ltd's Role)

• Bristol Airport Ltd holds legal title to the land on which the airport sits, according to the Land Registry. This means Bristol Airport Ltd is the landowner, even though OTPP owns the majority of the shares in the company.
• This is a typical arrangement where a company (Bristol Airport Ltd) owns land and manages operations (the airport), and an external party (OTPP) owns the company through shares. However, OTPP does not own the land directly; the company it owns (Bristol Airport Ltd) owns the land.

3. How OTPP "Owns" the Airport but Not the Land

• When Bristol Airport Ltd say that OTPP owns Bristol Airport, they are probably referring to owning the company that operates the airport (Bristol Airport Ltd), not the land itself. The land remains an asset of the company (Bristol Airport Ltd), but OTPP, as the majority shareholder, controls the company that owns and operates everything related to the airport’s business.

• In essence, OTPP owns the company (Bristol Airport Ltd), and through this company, it controls all the operations, facilities, and assets of the airport—except for the land itself, which is legally owned by the company (Bristol Airport Ltd) and not OTPP directly.

4. Implications for Parking Charge Notices (PCNs)

• Bristol Airport Ltd owns the land, meaning they are the legal entity responsible for it and can enter into agreements about what happens on the land, including contracting VCS.
• OTPP owns and controls Bristol Airport Ltd through shareholding but doesn’t directly manage or own the land. While OTPP may influence decisions through its control of Bristol Airport Ltd, the legal right to manage the land remains with the company (Bristol Airport Ltd), not OTPP directly.

Conclusion

In summary, OTPP owns Bristol Airport Ltd (the business that operates the airport) through shareholding, which includes controlling the airport’s facilities and operations. However, Bristol Airport Ltd is the legal owner of the land on which the airport sits. This means that while OTPP controls the business (Bristol Airport Ltd), the legal authority to deal with land-related matters, such as contracting VCS, comes from Bristol Airport Ltd as the landowner.

Clear as mud, eh?

Imnotpaying

Conclusion

In summary, OTPP owns Bristol Airport Ltd (the business that operates the airport) through shareholding, which includes controlling the airport’s facilities and operations. However, Bristol Airport Ltd is the legal owner of the land on which the airport sits. This means that while OTPP controls the business (Bristol Airport Ltd), the legal authority to deal with land-related matters, such as contracting VCS, comes from Bristol Airport Ltd as the landowner.

Clear as mud, eh?

No, it's very clear, thanks, @LDast, but not very helpful to those of us who have been persistently claiming that VCS have no right to issue charge notices on behalf of the landowner.  Do we now all need to reconsider this aspect of our complaints against VCS and BAL? 

Imnotpaying

Conclusion

In conclusion, the entire process undertaken by VCS and Excel is flawed. VCS issued a PCN based on an invalid assumption that a contract was formed, obtained the Keepers DVLA data and then unlawfully shared that data with Excel. VCS’s attempt to hold the keeper liable under PoFA is invalid due to the statutory control at Bristol Airport, and the processing of the keeper’s data represents a breach of GDPR. The keeper has no obligation to identify the driver, and VCS has no lawful basis to continue pursuing them.

Maybe point all this out to Bristol Airport.

Thanks, @LD@LDast, for that very clear conclusion.  I will make use of it, except the reference to keeper liability and PoFA, which are not relevant in my case, because, sadly, I appealed the PCN very soon after the event, and before finding this forum, and identified myself as the driver. 

Imnotpaying

We still have the fact that VCS' contract with BAL expired on 6 January 2023, unless anyone is aware of a more recent one, as very sketchily referred to in my reply from BAL. If there is a newer one, "dated 2023", as inferred to me by BAL, why did DBLegal refer to the original (October 2019) one as late as 4 September, 2024 in their response to @Drivad's queries.  What is the source of the original contract document?