G-SPOT's post at least genuinely gives two points of view, although I admit I agree with only one of them. I think the airport is being totally unfair and unreasonable.
Jumpseater's reaction has been ... err ... interesting?
In his first post, he expressed no sympathy for the innocent aircraft owners, and not a hint of criticism of the airport. Instead, he offered an "an insight into the airports side."
Well, I've read and re-read his insight, but I still can't see anything reasonable in the airport's behaviour.
If Jumpseater meant the airport's entitled to take advantage of a legal technicality, perhaps they are - but it doesn't make it fair or reasonable to do so against a group of private owners.
His second post expressed sympathy, but still wasn't critical of the airport's conduct - except at the very end where he was sort of, maybe, just about critical(ish) of the airport - it "seems unreasonable" of the airport not to take the money the poor owners can afford!
If that's his attitude to smallscale aviators, Jumpseater shouldn't be surprised if he finds jumpseats hard to come by!
Tinstaafl didn't commit himself either way re the airport's conduct, but suggested how the stable door might possibly, and probably at great expense, be shut after the horse has bolted - in order to safeguard the next one.
Still Grounded
Take up the idea of contacting 'Flyer' and 'Pilot'. Ian Seager who publishes Flyer, and Pat Malone who writes superb articles for Pilot, are both active GA pilots.
Other a/c owners need to be warned what some airport owners are like - they could easily be the next victims.
I wish you the best of luck, and hope you win.