Award Summary – August 2025 – 1

Publisher’s Note: The Pubs Code Adjudicator encourages openness and transparency in the operation of the Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016. Publication of awards made in Pubs Code arbitrations, or summaries of those awards, enables the industry to better understand previous decisions and consider how the Pubs Code is being applied in individual cases. Neither the Pubs Code Adjudicator nor an arbitrator is bound to follow published awards in applying the law, but such awards can be used to support the industry’s consideration of the proper interpretation of the Pubs Code. Parties are encouraged to take independent professional advice about their situation.

The outcome of an arbitration is based on its own facts and the evidence produced in the case and is not binding in other cases where the landlord and tenant are not the same. The Pubs Code Adjudicator does expect a regulated pub-owning business to consider its understanding of the law in light of each award that makes a finding on the interpretation of the statutory framework and to adjust its behaviour towards tenants as appropriate. The publication of an arbitration award or an award summary does not mean the Pubs Code Adjudicator endorses the decision and it does not form legal advice about any issue.

This summary is provided to assist in understanding the arbitration decision. It does not form part of the decision or reasons for the decision.

Summary of Award

1. Summary of findings 

The Arbitrator found that the changes to the local infrastructure (the loss of car parking spaces) in the vicinity of a tied pub did not constitute a “trigger event” for the purpose of reg. 7 of the Pubs Code Etc. Regulations 2016 (the Pubs Code) and s.43 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (the SBEEA) as stated in the tied-pub tenant (the TPT)’s Market Rent Only Notice (the MRO Notice). 

2. Factual background 

In December 2024, traffic calming measurers were put in force outside the TPT’s pub (the Pub). This resulted in the loss of six car parking spaces in the vicinity of the Pub, a change which was beyond the control of the TPT.  In December 2024, the TPT served an MRO Notice on their landlord, a Pub Owning Business (the POB) stating that a ‘trigger event’ had occurred. The TPT claimed that the new traffic calming measures constituted changes to local infrastructure under reg. 7 of the Pubs Code. The TPT provided analysis of the potential effects of the changes to the local infrastructure, and a forecast of the level of trading for the next 12 months. The MRO Notice also went on to state that this change was not reasonably foreseeable when any tenancy/lease was granted, and that therefore the TPT was making a request for a Market Rent Only (the MRO) proposal from the POB. The POB rejected the TPT’s MRO request on the basis that the traffic calming measures were not a significant infrastructure change that would constitute a Trigger Event for MRO purposes. The TPT referred the dispute to the Pubs Code Adjudicator (the PCA) for arbitration. 

3. Issues

The issue in this arbitration was whether a “Trigger Event” had occurred due to the loss of car parking spaces in the vicinity of the Pub following the implementation of traffic calming measures. In particular, the arbitrator considered whether the event the traffic calming measures had “a significant impact on the level of trade that could reasonably be expected to be achieved at the tied pub” as per s.43 of the SBEEA.

4. The relevant legislation

Reg 7 of the Pubs Code sets out the conditions which must be met for an event to be a “trigger event”, including that the effect of the event is to decrease the level of trade that is reasonably expected to be achieved at the tied pub in each month over a continuous period of 12 months. Relevant to this arbitration, Condition D in Reg 7 includes an event which has an effect which is directly related to changes in the local area such as – (i) changes to the local infrastructure; (ii) changes to local employment; (iii) long-term changes to the local economic environment; and (iv) changes to local environmental factors. 

Section 43(9) of SBEEA defines a “trigger event” to mean an event which is: (1) beyond the control of the tied pub tenant; (2) was not reasonably foreseeable; (3) has a significant impact on the level of trade that could reasonably be expected to achieve at the pub; and (4) is of a description specified in the Pubs Code (as set out above). 

5. Arbitrator’s Findings

After considering the parties’ submissions, the Arbitrator found as follows:

In dealing with this issue the Arbitrator broke down the issue into sub-issues based on submissions:

Sub-issue 1 – Loss of Car Parking Spaces

The Arbitrator noted that both parties agreed that there had been a reduction in the number of car parking spaces owing to the traffic calming measures, but there was a disagreement about how many spaces were lost. The Arbitrator found in the TPT’s favour that there had been a loss of six parking places.

Sub-issue 2 – Alternative Car Parking in the vicinity of the Pub

The POB asserted that whilst car parking had been reduced at the Pub owing to the traffic calming measures, there was ample alternative car parking available within short walking distance of the Pub. The POB maintained that this ameliorated the loss of car parking spaces immediately outside the TPT’s Pub. 

To satisfy that this was the case, the Arbitrator conducted a site visit and concluded that there was alternative parking available within a reasonable walking distance of the Pub. However, the Arbitrator did find that the restrictions and removal of parking spaces will undoubtedly put some customers off from visiting if a parking space is not available nearby and requires side street parking. 

Sub-issue 3 – Reduction of Annual Turnover due to loss of parking spaces

The TPT had asserted in its analysis that turnover would reduce by 40% due to the car parking restrictions. The Arbitrator noted that the figures used to support that assertion had not been explained, and that the figures did not take into account seasonal variations.

The POB presented “wet” volume sales data to show volumes of sales had not reduced after the parking restrictions but had, instead, increased. 

Based on the evidence, the Arbitrator found that there was no actual evidence to support the TPT’s assertion that the traffic calming measures would result in a 40% reduction in the volume of sales. The Arbitrator therefore did not find that turnover had been significantly affected by the traffic calming measures or that there had been a decrease in trade. As such, the Arbitrator found that there had not been a Trigger Event.

The arbitrator also found that the infrastructure changes were reasonably foreseeable, although the documentation was not easily available to the TPT. 

6. Summary

The Arbitrator found that the loss of parking spaces had not caused a significant impact on the TPT’s trade and therefore did not result in a Trigger Event as outlined in s.43 of SBEEA and/or reg 7 of the Pubs Code. Therefore, the POB had correctly rejected the TPT’s MRO notice.