Trinity car park Bristol - POPLA refused

StopMakingPoorPeoplePay

This was their response. It feels very generic... I'm not in a position to pay so is it a case of receiving the threatening letters and seeing if I receive a LBC? And at that point right a defense and go from there? What's the likelihood of them dropping the case?

POPLA APPEAL DECISION

Assessor: (Removed by Forum Team)

Decision:

REFUSED

Decision Date: 18/06/2026

Assessor Summary of the Operator Case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to failing to pay for sufficient parking.

Assessor Summary of the Appellant Case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the registered keeper and upon exiting the venue the driver attempted to pay, but the terminal was defective and restricted the payment to £1.50. • This amounts to frustration of contract. • No signage was visible to the driver or passenger and was only seen upon exit using a torch. • The driver is a disabled motorist, and the operator has failed to comply with Equality Act 2010 and make reasonable adjustments. • The operator has breached the BPA's standards of professional integrity as they claim the funds are used for the Trinity Centre charity, which is incorrect. . • They would like to see evidence the operator has authority to issue PCN’s. The appellant has re-iterated their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states no contract has been provided by the operator. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • A copy of a blue badge, a copy of the operator’s rejection notice, a copy of the PCN, a copy of their payment receipt, their payment transaction, email from the Trinity centre and a witness statement. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Summary of Reasons

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and despite appealing as the registered keeper, they have confirmed they were the driver in their further comments. As such, I will be assessing the appellants liability as the driver. I acknowledge the evidence provided of a copy of a blue badge, a copy of the operator’s rejection notice, a copy of the PCN, a copy of their payment receipt, their payment transaction, email from the Trinity centre and a witness statement. I will be assessing the grounds of appeal using the new Single Code of Practice which replaced the 2024 British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice and relates to all PCN’s issued on or after 1 October 2024. However, the grounds of appeal relating to signage at the site will be assessed using the 2024 BPA Code of Practice Version 9 as this still currently applies as operators have been given until December 2026 to brings signage up to the standards of the new code. The appellant has raised many grounds including signage, but it’s clear they did see the signs before leaving and paid at the machine. The appellant has stated the machine was faulty and did not allow them to pay more than £1.50. The appellant has provided no evidence of this, but I am not disputing their claims. I note that £1.50 allows them to park for 30 minutes, but they remained for 1 hour 47 minutes and did not pay enough. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with it’s Code of Practice which sets out minimum guidelines for private parking operators. Section 19.2 of the Code relates to entrance signs and states: Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section 19.3 relates to specific terms signs and states: Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack, and it has provided images of signs throughout the site and upon entry which make the terms clear, and motorists must pay the correct tariff. The operator has provided a list to demonstrate others paid before, during and after the appellants stay and paid more than £1.50. This shows the machine was functioning correctly. Whilst I accept there were no other payments made at the same time as the appellants, I must accept the machine report unless the contrary is proven. POPLA must assess the validity of the PCN against the terms and conditions. I cannot find any evidence of frustration of contract and whilst I fully acknowledge the points raised and the poor lighting on site, it’s clear the appellant was fully aware of the terms as they paid at the machine. I acknowledge from the appellants comments and evidence that the appellant is a disabled motorist and accept the Equality Act 2010 as a legal entity. Whilst the operator must consider the Equality Act 2010, on private land where parking is permitted, the operator only needs to make reasonable adjustments in line with parking, such as providing disabled bays for disabled motorists. As the appellant is not challenging this, I must accept the operator has not failed to comply with the above act. I note the further comments made in relation to standards of professional integrity and the evidence from the Trinity Centre confirming they do not profit from PCN’s, but the operator is not claiming the centre does, they are stating the centre profits from motorists paying the tariff to park, this is a completely different point. If the appellant believes the operator has failed to mee the BPA standards of professional integrity they may log a formal complaint with the operator directly info@carflow.co.uk. POPLA can only assess the validity of the PCN against the terms and conditions. As the appellant did not pay for their full time on site, the PCN was issued correctly. Clause 14.1 relates to relationship with landowner and states: Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s). The operator has not provided a copy of the landowner agreement for commercially sensitive purposes but has confirmed they do have authority on site. Without any evidence to rebut this, I again must accept the operator’s confirmation. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that the appellant broke them by failing to pay for their stay. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Le_Kirk

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist. Wait for the Letter before/of Claim and send the letter in reply to it as per the NEWBIE sticky second post (or just ignore it) and then wait for the N1SDT claim form. There is no need to write a defence it is already there for you in the template defence thread; you just adapt paragraph 2/3 to suit your issue. Do we know the PPC?

Coupon-mad

Here we go again with that male assessor, whose record of refusing appeals (based on what we see from him) must be on a par with the IAS 5% allowed:

"The operator has not provided a copy of the landowner agreement for commercially sensitive purposes but has confirmed they do have authority on site. Without any evidence to rebut this, I again must accept the operator’s confirmation."

Did your appeal raise 'no landowner authority' as an appeal point?

Which PPC?

Did they provide a landowner witness statement in accordance with the landowner authority Annex of the Joint Code?