+- Private Parking Ticket Legal Advice (PPTLA) (https://pptla.uk)
+-- Forum: Legal advice forum (https://pptla.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Parking Charge Notices forum (https://pptla.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: PCN - Premier Park - Aspects Leisure Park Bristol (/showthread.php?tid=123)
PCN - Premier Park - Aspects Leisure Park Bristol - onFourWheels - 09-06-2026
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Premier Park Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 25 August 2026. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 25 August 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: Yes. The location is stated as Aspects Leisure Park, Bristol (Patrol).
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 27 August 2026 (2 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Additional notes provided:
The Keeper received this notice on 05/09/2026.
The Driver has relayed to the Keeper that they were present at the leisure park on the day in question, but believes they had already left by the 1pm "incident time" shown. In addition the driver is a registered disabled person with severe mobility issues and a current Blue Badge holder. They firmly believe, but cannot be 100% certain, that they had displayed their Blue Badge, as they always would when parking in a disabled bay.
The driver is particularly concerned that this NTK is for failure to display a blue badge, yet does not show a picture of the front of the vehicle, and that the times shows in the photographs do not match the incident time shown on the NTK.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
RE: PCN - Premier Park - Aspects Leisure Park Bristol - Brenda_R2 - 09-06-2026
@b789 will be along shortly with a bulletproof response.
However, POFA 9(2)(e) is binary.
It requires the NTK to state that the creditor does not know the name of the driver and does not know a current address for service for the driver, and it must invite the keeper either:
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charge; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to provide the driver’s name and address and pass the notice to them.
Your NTK scan shows no compliant invitation under (i).
Under POFA, if any element of 9(2)(e) is missing, keeper liability does not arise.
It’s not “mostly compliant.”
It’s not “near enough.”
It’s not “industry standard.”
It’s not “but it’s a full moon so we get an exemption.”
POFA compliance is not determined by lunar cycles, druidic rituals, or whether the NTK was printed while someone danced around Stonehenge at the winter solstice.
Either the statutory stones line up perfectly… or they don’t.
And here, they very much don’t, because POFA is binary.
Either it is met in full, or it is not met at all.
And when it's not met in full, as has happened here, no keeper liability exists in law.
And just to manage expectations: your appeal will almost certainly fail — not because you’re wrong, but because these private parking parasites don’t operate an appeals system. They operate a revenue stream.
RE: PCN - Premier Park - Aspects Leisure Park Bristol - b789 - 09-07-2026
@onFourWheels, not another PCN from these private parking bloodsuckers! @Brenda_R2, is correct but there is an even bigger PoFA flaw.
Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to warn the keeper that, if the charge remains unpaid after the prescribed 28-day period and the creditor does not know the driver's name and address for service, the creditor will have the right to recover the unpaid amount from the KEEPER.
Premier Park instead says:
"...we will have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the DRIVER of the vehicle..."
That is not a minor drafting defect. It says precisely the opposite of what paragraph 9(2)(f) requires. Premier Park has warned only that it may continue pursuing the driver. It has not given the statutory warning that would permit transfer of liability to the Keeper.
Accordingly, assuming the driver remains unidentified, I would treat this as a straightforward non-PoFA keeper case.
There are also further problems with the notice.
First, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates". Premier Park gives an "Incident Time/Date" of 13:00, but the only photographs printed on the notice are timestamped 12:40:49 and 12:40:50. It then says:
"The period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above."
That does not actually specify any identifiable period of parking. "The period immediately preceding 13:00" could mean seconds, minutes or considerably longer. More significantly, the photographic evidence apparently relied upon was taken about nineteen minutes earlier. There is an obvious evidential disconnect between the alleged 13:00 incident and photographs at 12:40.
That is potentially another paragraph 9(2)(a) failure, quite apart from the fatal paragraph 9(2)(f) defect.
Second, the substantive allegation is:
"Parked in Disabled Bay without clearly displaying a Valid Disabled Badge."
Yet the two photographs supplied show only the rear of the vehicle. Unless Premier Park has additional photographs showing the windscreen/dashboard, those photographs simply cannot establish that a Blue Badge was not displayed in the place where one would ordinarily expect it to be displayed. A photograph of the rear of a vehicle establishes that the vehicle was in the bay; it does not establish non-display of a badge at the front.
That point becomes even stronger because their photographs are not contemporaneous with the stated incident time.
The disability issue should also be raised, but carefully and without identifying the driver. The Blue Badge scheme itself does not automatically have statutory effect on private land. However, Premier Park and the landholder remain subject to the Equality Act 2010. The current Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) expressly recognises the need for operators to have regard to Equality Act obligations concerning disabled motorists and accessible parking. The Government has also expressly confirmed in 2026 that operators are required to consider the Equality Act, including arrangements for disabled drivers.
The PPSCoP also requires, where an operator chooses to recognise the Blue Badge scheme, that the relevant obligations concerning display are made clear on the signage. Premier Park is currently a BPA member/AOS operator.
I would therefore proceed on two parallel tracks.
The Keeper should appeal to Premier Park strictly as Keeper, without saying who was driving. The appeal should lead with the defective PoFA wording rather than the Blue Badge circumstances. Something along these lines would be appropriate:
Quote:I appeal as the registered keeper. The driver has not been identified and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.
Premier Park has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and therefore has no right to recover this charge from me as Keeper.
In particular, paragraph 9(2)(f) requires a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to warn that, subject to the statutory conditions being satisfied, the creditor will have the right to recover any unpaid parking charge from the keeper.
Your notice does not contain that warning. Instead it states:
"...we will have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle."
That does not satisfy paragraph 9(2)(f). It merely states that Premier Park may pursue the driver. Since the driver has not been identified, there is no lawful basis upon which Premier Park may hold me liable as keeper.
The notice also fails properly to specify a period of parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). It gives an "incident time" of 13:00 but states only that the alleged period of parking was "the period immediately preceding" that time. No actual period is specified. Moreover, the photographs shown on the notice are timestamped 12:40:49 and 12:40:50, approximately nineteen minutes before the alleged incident time.
There is also no photographic evidence supplied with the notice capable of establishing the alleged contravention. The allegation is that a valid disabled badge was not clearly displayed, yet both photographs show only the rear of the vehicle. They cannot establish what was or was not displayed inside the front windscreen/dashboard area.
For completeness, an occupant of the vehicle was a disabled person with severe mobility impairment and holds a current Blue Badge. Premier Park and its principal are required to have regard to their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The keeper reserves all rights in that respect.
As Premier Park cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper, the Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled. If you reject this appeal, please provide a POPLA verification code together with all photographs relied upon, including any photograph said to demonstrate that no Blue Badge was displayed.
I would keep it at roughly that level for the first appeal. There is no advantage at this stage in volunteering that the driver is uncertain whether the badge was displayed, nor in saying that the driver thinks they had already left by 13:00. Both are unnecessary factual admissions and potentially give Premier Park material to work with.
The Keeper should also complain directly to the leisure park/landowner or managing agent. The Aspects Leisure Park website identifies Savills as the leisure park management contact. That complaint can concentrate much more heavily on the disability circumstances and request cancellation as a reasonable and proportionate response, without identifying the driver.
The most important point, though, is this: Premier Park has expressly written "from the driver of the vehicle" where PoFA requires the statutory warning of recovery "from the keeper". That destroys keeper liability under PoFA paragraph 9. The fact that most of the surrounding prose resembles PoFA wording does not cure it.
Use the following as a formal complaint to Savills at PMAdminMCR@savills.com:
Quote:Formal Complaint – Premier Park PCN [reference] – Disabled Visitor – Request for Cancellation
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make a formal complaint concerning a Parking Charge Notice issued by Premier Park Ltd at Aspects Leisure Park, Bristol.
The Parking Charge Notice alleges that a vehicle was "Parked in Disabled Bay without clearly displaying a Valid Disabled Badge". The person using the vehicle at the material time is a disabled person with severe mobility difficulties and is the holder of a current Blue Badge.
There are serious concerns about both the factual basis of the charge and the manner in which Premier Park has issued and pursued it.
The Notice itself states an "incident time" of 13:00 on 25 August 2026. However, the only photographs supplied with the Notice are timestamped 12:40:49 and 12:40:50, approximately nineteen minutes earlier. Both photographs show only the rear of the vehicle. They do not show the windscreen or dashboard and therefore do not establish whether or not a Blue Badge was displayed.
More significantly, Premier Park has sent the registered keeper a demand which purports to adopt the language of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), yet does not comply with the statutory requirements necessary to create keeper liability. In particular, the statutory warning required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(f) is absent. Premier Park instead states that, after 28 days, it will have the right to recover the unpaid charge "from the driver of the vehicle". That does not confer any right to recover the charge from the registered keeper, whose identity as driver has neither been admitted nor established.
Accordingly, insofar as this demand is being pursued against the registered keeper, there is no lawful basis for doing so.
There is also an obvious concern that a parking contractor engaged on behalf of the landholder or managing agent is issuing charges concerning disabled parking without producing evidence capable of establishing the alleged breach. Given that the person concerned is genuinely disabled and has substantial mobility impairment, I would also expect both Savills and its parking contractor to have proper regard to their obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and to ensure that disabled visitors are not subjected to unjustified or disproportionate demands.
I therefore ask that Savills treats this as a formal complaint and instructs its agent, Premier Park Ltd, to cancel this Parking Charge Notice immediately.
I would also be grateful if you would confirm:
- that Savills has instructed Premier Park to cancel the charge;
- that no further demands will be issued to the registered keeper; and
- what steps Savills will take to ensure that its parking contractor does not pursue similar unsupported demands against disabled visitors in future.
I look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[Keepers name]
RE: PCN - Premier Park - Aspects Leisure Park Bristol - onFourWheels - 09-08-2026
@b789 Thank you as always for your detailed reply!
In the event that I were to log in to appeal this, and find that there were photographs online showing the front of the vehicle, and that those photographs showed that no blue badge was displayed at the time, despite the driver being genuinely disabled and holding a valid one... (
)Would your appeal advice remain the same or no?
RE: PCN - Premier Park - Aspects Leisure Park Bristol - b789 - 09-08-2026
Yes — broadly the same, but I would change the emphasis.
If the online photographs genuinely show the front of the vehicle and clearly establish that no Blue Badge was displayed, then I would drop any suggestion that Premier Park lacks evidence that no badge was visible at the time those photographs were taken. There would be little value in arguing a factual point that their own evidence disproves.
The strongest appeal point would still be the keeper-liability issue. The driver has not been identified, and the NtK appears to fail PoFA paragraph 9(2)(f) because it says Premier Park may recover the unpaid charge "from the driver of the vehicle" rather than giving the mandatory warning that, subject to the statutory conditions, it may recover it from the keeper. That defect is in the NtK itself and cannot be repaired by better photographs.
I would therefore keep the appeal strictly in the keeper's name and lead with the PoFA failure.
I would also retain, and actually strengthen, the challenge to the stated incident time of 13:00. The NtK says the contravention occurred at 13:00, yet the photographs shown on the notice are timestamped approximately 12:40. The driver is fairly sure that the vehicle had already left before 13:00. Premier Park should therefore be put to strict proof that the vehicle was actually present and observed in the disabled bay at 13:00.
If the additional online photographs are also timestamped around 12:40, then all they prove is what was visible at around 12:40. They do not prove that the vehicle was still present at 13:00, nor do they prove that any observation was made at the time stated on the NtK. Premier Park cannot simply print "13:00" on the notice and expect that assertion to be treated as evidence. If they rely on that time, they should produce the underlying contemporaneous evidence showing how and when that observation was made.
The disability point would remain relevant, but more as a cancellation/Equality Act argument than as a denial that the badge may not have been displayed. A genuinely disabled person with severe mobility impairment does not cease to be disabled merely because a Blue Badge was inadvertently not displayed. The Blue Badge is evidence of disability and entitlement; it is not what creates the disability itself. On private land, the operator and landholder still need to consider their Equality Act duties and reasonable adjustments.
So, if the front photographs show no badge, I would frame it as:
Quote:The keeper does not admit liability and the driver has not been identified. Premier Park has failed to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 PoFA. In addition, Premier Park is put to strict proof that the vehicle was actually present and observed at the stated incident time of 13:00, since the photographs presently shown are timestamped approximately 12:40 and do not establish the vehicle's presence at 13:00. Separately, the vehicle was being used in connection with a genuinely disabled person with substantial mobility impairment who holds a valid Blue Badge. Any failure to display the badge does not extinguish that person's protected status under the Equality Act 2010, and the landholder/operator is requested to consider cancellation as a reasonable adjustment.
In other words: even if the photographs prove no badge was visible at 12:40, that does not cure the defective NtK, it does not prove the alleged 13:00 observation, and it does not remove the disability issue.