DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 72134--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: Cariboudle
Date: May 19, 2025, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
>
> b789 gave you the opportunity to get on the front foot, but
it's not been taken.
> Do it now. You'll at least have the satisfaction of fighting
back when otherwise all you can do is respond(by posting here
for information) to their comms.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks, I'll be following the advice from b789.
In the mean time, should I ignore the Letter of Claim dated 6th
May? I thought that was a bad idea based on some other threads
on here.
Regards,
#Post#: 72142--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 19, 2025, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should reply (sort of) because, unlike the tide of
correspondence to date, there is a place for a Letter of Claim
in the formal process of the administration of justice CIVIL
PROCEDURES!
Dear Sir,
Letter of Claim dated 6 May 2025
I refer to the above in which you make repeated references to
County Court claim, debt, county court judgment and the like..
I also refer you to the correspondence sent on behalf of your
client by ZZPS dated **, *** (list all the dates) in which the
following phrase stands out by virtue of having been written in
bold capitals in each:
'..A BREACH OF RAILWAY BYELAWS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH CAN
BE PURSUED BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE PROSECUTION IN THE MAGISTRATES
COURT'
Clearly your client has not briefed you well on this matter.
There is no claim, in the sense in which a Letter of Claim might
be valid, merely an assertion that there has been 'a breach of
railway byelaws'.
Would you please respond having spoken to your client.
Yours faithfully
My thoughts.
#Post#: 72143--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: Cariboudle
Date: May 19, 2025, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, H C Andersen, I'll reply to Moorside Legal as advised
above, and by regular letter rather than filling in their form.
#Post#: 72172--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: b789
Date: May 19, 2025, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just send your response to the LoC as a pdf attachment in an
email to info@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC in
customersupport.uk@sabagroup.com and also yourself. However, I
would expand on @H C Andersen's suggested letter as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir,
>
> Letter of Claim dated 6 May 2025
>
> I write in response to the above, in which you repeatedly
refer to an alleged “debt”, a prospective County Court claim,
and the possibility of a County Court Judgment. These statements
purport to rely on a civil cause of action.
>
> However, I must draw your attention to correspondence
previously sent on behalf of your client by their agent ZZPS,
dated [insert dates], in which the following statement was
prominently featured in bold capital letters in each:
>
> [indent]“A BREACH OF RAILWAY BYELAWS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE
WHICH CAN BE PURSUED BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE PROSECUTION IN THE
MAGISTRATES’ COURT.”[/indent]
>
> This is not a minor detail. It goes to the heart of your
client’s claimed entitlement. Your client has, by design, issued
a demand styled as a Penalty Notice—a term reserved for
statutory enforcement under Railway Byelaws—and has framed it
explicitly as a criminal matter, implying liability for a
criminal offence.
>
> It is therefore wholly inappropriate—and arguably unethical
and legally unsustainable—for you, as a regulated legal firm, to
now attempt to reframe that same demand as a civil contractual
“debt” capable of County Court enforcement. A party cannot
pursue a statutory penalty by issuing civil proceedings when no
valid contract is pleaded and no intention ever existed to
prosecute the alleged offence in the proper forum, namely the
Magistrates’ Court.
>
> Your attempt to civilly enforce what your client has presented
as a criminal matter risks misleading the court and is contrary
to both the spirit and substance of the Civil Procedure Rules.
It also raises serious concerns under the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (SRA) Standards and Regulations, particularly
regarding your duty not to mislead or abuse the court process
and your obligation to act with integrity.
>
> Unless you confirm in writing that this matter will be
withdrawn, I intend to submit a formal complaint to the
Solicitors Regulation Authority, enclosing both your Letter of
Claim and your client’s earlier correspondence, as clear
evidence of conduct falling below the expected professional
standard.
>
> Furthermore, your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient
detail of the alleged claim and fails to provide copies of any
evidence your client intends to rely upon. It is therefore in
clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC),
specifically paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1, and 5.2, as well as the
Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct at paragraphs 6(a) and
6(c).
>
> For clarity, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am
under no obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do
so. There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver
on any given occasion. Your client cannot pursue me as driver,
as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].
>
> If your client intends to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), they are barred from doing so. The
alleged event occurred on railway land, which is not “relevant
land” under PoFA, and therefore keeper liability does not apply.
Your client has no cause of action against me as either keeper
or driver. Any attempt to issue proceedings against me will be
defended robustly and I will apply for costs on the basis of
unreasonable and vexatious conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
>
> Because your Letter Before Claim does not comply with PAPDC,
this letter constitutes a formal request for all the information
and documentation required by the protocol. Unless and until
your client complies fully with the pre-action requirements,
they must not issue proceedings.
>
> Accordingly, I require your client to provide the following:
>
> [indent]1. A clear explanation of the cause of action
> 2. Whether they are pursuing me as the driver or keeper
> 3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
PoFA 2012
> 4. Details of the claim: how long the vehicle was allegedly
parked, how the claimed amount arose and was calculated
> 5. If the claim is contractual, the date of the agreement,
parties to it, and a copy of the contract
> 6. Photographic evidence showing the vehicle in breach of the
terms
> 7. If the claim is for trespass, provide details
> 8. A copy of the contract with the landowner granting your
client authority to enforce and litigate, as required by the
PPSCoP
> 9. A site plan showing signage locations
> 10. Photographs of signage including size, font, wording, and
positioning
> 11. A breakdown of the original charge and any added interest
or fees
> 12. An explanation of the £70 'debt recovery' fee, whether it
includes VAT, and if so, why I am being charged for the
operator’s VAT
> 13. Clarification of the legal basis for the principal sum: is
it claimed as damages or contractual consideration?[/indent]
>
> I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs
6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also require it to
meet my obligations under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If your client fails to provide this information, I will rely
on Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC
3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Ltd v The Park West Club Ltd
[2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent
Foundations Ltd [2007] EWHC 855 to seek an order for a stay of
proceedings and sanctions against your client under paragraphs
13, 15 and 16 of the Practice Direction.
>
> I confirm that I will respond within 30 days once I receive a
compliant Letter of Claim. Until then, your client is not in a
position to issue proceedings.
>
> Please take instructions and respond accordingly.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
Also, get that complaint off to your MP. You have everything you
need. Just look up your MPs email contact which can be found
here:
HTML https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons
Also, did you submit a DVLA complaint?
#Post#: 72175--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: b789
Date: May 19, 2025, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint. I advise you to action this
immediately:
[indent]• Go to:
HTML https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles
service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle
details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a
covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this
can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.[/indent]
The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every
complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who
encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we
might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that
means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.
For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the
following:
--- Quote ---
> I am submitting a formal complaint against SABA Park Solutions
UK Limited, a BPA AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for
breaching the BPA Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) and the terms of the KADOE contract following their
acquisition of my keeper data.
>
> While SABA may have had reasonable cause at the time of their
KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—by issuing a
misleading "Penalty Notice" framed as a statutory offence, and
then instructing a solicitor (Moorside Legal) to pursue the same
notice as a civil debt—constitutes a serious breach of the
PPSCoP. Their conduct is deceptive and amounts to misuse of
personal data obtained from the DVLA under false pretences.
>
> The PPSCoP forms part of the regulatory framework under which
private operators are granted DVLA data access. The DVLA, as
data controller, is legally obliged under UK GDPR and the Data
Protection Act 2018 to act where data has been used unlawfully
or for a purpose materially different from that for which it was
obtained.
>
> I have uploaded a supporting statement detailing how SABA’s
behaviour contravenes their obligations under the KADOE contract
and PPSCoP. I request that the DVLA investigate and take
enforcement action, including suspension or termination of
SABA’s KADOE access.
>
> Please confirm receipt and provide a reference number for this
complaint.
>
--- End Quote ---
Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal
complaint itself:
--- Quote ---
> SUPPORTING STATEMENT
>
> Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
>
> Operator name: SABA Park Solutions UK Limited
> Date of Penalty Notice issue: [INSERT DATE]
> Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
>
> I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my
personal data by SABA Park Solutions UK Limited, who obtained my
keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE contract (Keeper At
Date Of Event).
>
> Although SABA may have had reasonable cause at the time of
their data request, their subsequent use of that data breaches
both the KADOE contract and the BPA’s Private Parking Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP). These breaches render their continued
use of my data unlawful.
>
> SABA issued a Penalty Notice purporting to be based on Railway
Byelaw 14, claiming that the recipient was liable for a criminal
offence and warning in bold capitals that: “A BREACH OF RAILWAY
BYELAWS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH CAN BE PURSUED BY MEANS OF A
PRIVATE PROSECUTION IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT.”
>
> However, SABA has made no effort to prosecute this alleged
offence. Instead, they passed the matter to ZZPS, who treated
the Notice as a civil debt and pursued me accordingly. This was
followed by a Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal, who are now
seeking to issue a County Court claim based on an alleged
contractual breach. This directly contradicts the earlier
assertion that the Penalty Notice arose from a statutory
criminal offence. These incompatible claims cannot co-exist.
>
> The KADOE contract only allows keeper data to be used for
pursuing unpaid parking charges in line with the Code of
Practice. SABA cannot lawfully obtain my data under the guise of
statutory enforcement and then pursue a civil claim dressed up
as a contract dispute. The PPSCoP also prohibits misleading or
aggressive tactics. This is a clear example of false
representation intended to pressure a data subject into payment.
>
> SABA’s conduct has been deceptive, misleading, and unlawful.
It demonstrates a pattern of abuse whereby a statutory byelaw is
used as a front for extracting civil payments from registered
keepers who were never prosecuted. The continued use of DVLA
data for this purpose is not compliant with either the Code or
the law.
>
> I therefore request that the DVLA, as data controller,
investigates this misuse of personal data and takes appropriate
enforcement action. This may include:
>
> • Confirming that a breach has occurred
> • Taking enforcement action against SABA
> • Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted
>
> Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this
complaint. I am happy to supply further documentation upon
request.
>
> Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
> Date: [INSERT DATE]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 73355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: Cariboudle
Date: May 27, 2025, 3:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone and thanks again b789 for your help, just a quick
update on the actions suggested here that I have taken over the
last few days.
I have sent the complaint to the DVLA - their server kept
throwing up an error when I tried to load the pdf so I merely
copied the statement you kindly provided into the text box below
the summary as there is enough room. I have had the automatic
response from DVLA saying it's been received.
I emailed the response to the LoC to info@moorsidelegal.co.uk,
copying in Saba and myself. I put a delivery and read receipt
on the email.
The email was delivered to myself and Saba. I received both the
delivery receipt and Saba's own automatic response template.
I got an outlook delivery failure for Moorside Legal, though:
"Your message couldn't be delivered because the recipient's
email server (outside Office 365) suspected that your message
was spam."
I tried again using help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and got the same
response which was confusingly followed by an automatic response
to say that the email had been received and a read receipt from
outlook. At least I know it got to the company, even if it
wasn't the info address. I will assume whoever manages the help
inbox will forward it to the correct department.
I have written to my MP via email using the templates provided
in this thread and received an automatic response that it had
been received.
Now we just wait for someone to reply, I suppose.
Thanks again, b789, for your template letters and briefings. I
can't believe you all do this for free and I am very grateful.
#Post#: 74457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: Cariboudle
Date: June 3, 2025, 1:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nothing to see here, just a response from DVLA essentially
absolving themselves of any wrongdoing (not that we were blaming
them ??? )
--- Quote ---
> Dear Name
>
> Thank you for your correspondence of 27th May about the
release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing
Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register. I have been asked to formally
review your case at Step 1 of our complaint’s procedure.
>
> The DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very
seriously and has procedures in place to ensure data is
disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so and where
the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met. The Agency
must strike a balance between ensuring the privacy of motorists
is respected while enabling those who may have suffered loss or
damage to seek redress.
> I should explain that once the DVLA provide data to a parking
company they then become the Data Controller and are responsible
for making decisions about how personal data is handled,
ensuring compliance with data protection regulations like the
GDPR.
>
> The ATA’s code of practice covers many aspects of a car
parking operators’ business, and while compliance with the code
of practice is a key consideration for DVLA when releasing
Vehicle Keeper Data, not all requirements of the code affect
reasonable cause. DVLA will not disclose data to parking
companies who are not members of an ATA and looks primarily to
the ATA’s to monitor adherence to the code of practice and
explore and address non-compliance when it arises.
>
> The company in question, Saba Park Services UK Limited, are a
member of the British Parking Association (BPA) which is an
Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. The BPA’s
code of practice is published on its website at
HTML http://www.britishparking.co.uk
under the heading “Approved
Operators Scheme”. If a member of this scheme does not comply
with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled,
during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA. If
you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not
comply with the BPA’s code of practice, you may wish to contact
the BPA via email at
>
HTML https://portal.britishparking.co.uk/compliance/LogComplaint
or
by post at Chelsea House, 8-14 The Broadway, Haywards Heath,
West Sussex RH16 3AH.
>
> We have fully considered all the information available. If you
feel that your complaint has not been resolved, you can request
escalation of your complaint to Step 2 of the complaints
process. Further options about our complaint procedure can be
found online at www.gov.uk/dvla/complaints.
>
> Yours sincerely
> Name - Data Customer Auditor
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 74489--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: b789
Date: June 3, 2025, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The DVLA’s response is a standard Step 1 dismissal issued to
deflect responsibility by shifting it to the Accredited Trade
Association (in this case, the BPA), even when misuse of data
after disclosure is precisely what the DVLA is still responsible
for as the original data controller.
You can now escalate to a level 2 response. I tis made in
exactly the same way the the original complaint was made except
that it now goes to the "Head of Complaints" and the link is:
HTML https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/head-of-complaints
For the webform, include something like this:
--- Quote ---
> I am submitting a Step 2 escalation in accordance with the
DVLA’s complaint procedure, following a Step 1 reply dated
[insert date].
>
> This complaint concerns misuse of my personal data by SABA
Park Services UK Ltd, a BPA AOS member with DVLA KADOE access.
My Step 1 complaint was not addressed adequately. While the DVLA
may deem the initial data request to have had reasonable cause,
the subsequent use of my keeper data has breached both the KADOE
contract and the UK GDPR, and falls outside the scope of the
original purpose.
>
> I have attached a detailed supporting statement for review. I
request a formal investigation, as this complaint relates to a
breach of lawful purpose under Article 5(1)(b) of UK GDPR, as
well as misuse of personal data and misrepresentation of legal
authority.
>
> Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this Step 2
escalation. I will also be referring the matter to my MP and the
ICO.
--- End Quote ---
Then upload the following as a PDF attachment:
--- Quote ---
> SUPPORTING STATEMENT
>
> Step 2 Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and Misuse
of Keeper Data
>
> Operator Name: SABA Park Services UK Ltd
> Parking Notice Issue Date: [Insert Date]
> Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
> KADOE Data Request Date: [Insert Date, if known]
>
> I am escalating this complaint following a wholly inadequate
Step 1 response that failed to engage with the central issue:
SABA Park Services UK Ltd have misused my personal data obtained
via KADOE by pursuing a contractual civil claim disguised as a
statutory penalty.
>
> The DVLA’s response wrongly claimed that once data is
disclosed, SABA becomes the sole Data Controller. This ignores
the DVLA’s continuing duty under UK GDPR and the Data Protection
Act 2018 as the original Data Controller and contractual
overseer of the KADOE scheme. That scheme limits access and use
of keeper data to specific, lawful purposes.
>
> While SABA may have claimed a valid statutory basis for
accessing my data (namely, enforcement of Railway Byelaws),
their subsequent conduct confirms that they had no intention of
laying information before a Magistrates’ Court. Instead, they
issued a misleading "Penalty Notice" and then instructed
Moorside Legal to pursue a civil debt under contract law, not
statute.
>
> This is a clear breach of the purpose limitation principle
under Article 5(1)(b) UK GDPR. Keeper data provided for the
purpose of statutory enforcement cannot be repurposed to pursue
a civil claim dressed up as a criminal penalty. The language
used in both the Penalty Notice and the follow-up letters is
designed to coerce payment through misrepresentation of legal
consequences.
>
> SABA’s own correspondence admits that:
>
> [indent]• They are issuing “Penalty Notices” for alleged
byelaw offences;
> • But are enforcing them as civil contractual claims, not via
criminal prosecution;
> • The “penalty” money goes to the landowner, not the public
purse;
> • And recipients are not being prosecuted despite threats that
appear to imply otherwise.[/indent]
>
> This conduct is unlawful, misleading, and in breach of:
>
> [indent]• The DVLA’s KADOE contract (which requires Code
compliance and lawful use);
> • The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP);
> • The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
(misleading actions); and
> • The Fraud Act 2006, specifically Section 2 (false
representation).[/indent]
>
> The DVLA’s Step 1 reply sought to delegate responsibility to
the BPA. However, only the DVLA can investigate misuse of data
obtained via KADOE. The BPA does not monitor legal purpose or
compliance with data protection law.
>
> I therefore request that the DVLA:
>
> [indent]• Confirm that SABA's post-disclosure use of DVLA data
for civil recovery of an alleged statutory breach was unlawful;
> • Confirm that this constitutes a breach of the KADOE
contract;
> • Suspend or terminate SABA’s access to the KADOE system;
> • Report the matter to the ICO and Trading Standards if not
already done.[/indent]
>
> I reserve the right to forward this matter to my MP and the
Information Commissioner’s Office. Please confirm receipt of
this escalation and provide a complaint reference.
>
> Name: [Your Full Name]
> Date: [Today’s Date]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 79262--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: Cariboudle
Date: July 2, 2025, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, finally got a response from Moorside Legal via email -
although they appear to only be responding to part of the letter
than requests further details, and have not addressed at all the
issue of the validity under criminal v civil law.
--- Quote ---
> Our reference: 10211180
> Our client: Saba Park Services UK Limited
>
> We have responded to your questions below.
>
> 1. An explanation of the cause of action
>
> Our client has instructed us to collect the outstanding
balance of £170.00 in relation to an unpaid Parking Charge
Notice.
>
> 2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
>
> Please see the attached Notice to Keeper.
>
> 3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012
>
> We are instructed that a compliant PCN was sent. In
accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 8
(6) "A notice sent by post is to be presumed... to have been
delivered (and so “given”... on the second working
day after the day on which it is posted. 
>
> 4. What the details of the claim are; for how long it is
claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed
arose and have been calculated
>
> The PCN was issued for FAILING TO OBTAIN A VALID TICKET OR
CASHLESS PARKING SESSION at HEMEL HEMPSTEAD MAIN on the
12-Sep-24.
>
> 5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the
date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and
provide to me a copy of that contract.
>
> The Terms and Conditions on which Saba Park Services UK
Limited's services are provided are clearly displayed throughout
the private land. Please be advised that there are several signs
within this location displaying the terms and conditions, As
you breached the terms and conditions of the car park, this PCN
was correctly issued. Considering the evidence, we are satisfied
that the PCN has been issued in line with industry standards and
is compliant with the International Parking Community’s
(IPC) code of practice. The signage of the car park also
complies with the International Parking Community’s Code
of Practice.
>
> By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private
land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to
be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms
and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in
prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to
comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the
PCN.
>
> 6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs
showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said
contract.
>
> Please see the attached images.
>
> 7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
>
> N/A
>
> 8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under
which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
>
> It is unclear why you would need to inspect any agreement
between our client and the landowner as you are not party to
that agreement, not could it aid your dispute or any potential
defence.
>
> 9. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
>
> We have requested this and will send in due course.
>
> 10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of
font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged
contravention.
>
> See above.
>
> 11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any
interest and administrative or other charges added.
> Please be advised that the original amount of the PCN was
£100.00. As outlined in the notice, a reduced amount of £60.00
would have been accepted as full and final settlement if payment
had been received within 14 days from the date of issue.
> Unfortunately, as no payment was received within that time
frame, the opportunity to pay the reduced amount has now
expired. As a result of continued non-payment and additional
charges, the balance has increased and now stands at £170.00.
> 12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what
is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this net
or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why
I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
>
> The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking
Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking
Association and International Parking Community Codes of
Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge
when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery
is required. Our Client is a member of the International Parking
Community which is a government approved Accredited Trade
Association (ATA) for Private Parking. Our Client adheres to the
ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 does not represent the
cost of recovery but is a reasonable amount in relation to the
Parking Charge amount, in order to encourage early payment of
the Parking Charge without the need for debt recovery. It is a
fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved
Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice. There are however
also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery
services.
>
> 13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this
damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
>
> By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private
land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to
be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms
and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in
prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to
comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the
PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason
would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract.
>
> Please note that we will not be addressing any further
correspondence related to disputes of the same nature, as we
have already provided you with a response. However, should you
wish to raise a new dispute, we will investigate the matter
further and respond accordingly.
>
> You can make payment in the following ways:
>
> Contact us on 0330 828 5850 (our opening times are Monday-
Friday 9:00- 17:00);
> Register online at www.moorsidelegal.co.uk;
> Customer Portal - Quick Pay (moorsidelegal.co.uk)
>
> If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed
by our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will
incur further costs and fees that will be added to the
outstanding balance.
>
> You may wish to seek independent legal advice.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Moorside Legal
>
> Sophie
> Collections Administrator
--- End Quote ---
To the email they have attached the Saba letter from the 25th
October
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ZYfn1sB
as well as two black and
white photographs of my car which I had not seen before.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/qb4aN5A
#Post#: 79284--------------------------------------------------
Re: Saba Parking Services - Railway parking site - debt
collector before initial notice?
DIR By: b789
Date: July 2, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They are threatening you with a claim in the civil court for an
alleged criminal breach of railway byelaws. They cannot have it
both ways. You cannot try to recover a statutory penalty in the
county court. It would be laughed out of court and they would
get a real spanking from the judge.
If they want to prosecute a statutory penalty issued under
railway byelaws, they ONLY way to do so is to lay information
before a magistrate and persuade the magistrate that there are
sufficient grounds to issue summons. The Keeper would only be
able to challenge it in court. The prosecution has to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the person being prosecuted is
the "owner" of the vehicle.
How do you suppose that they would be able to prove "ownership"?
There is no register of "owners". If they think that they can
infer "ownership" because you are the registered Keeper, just
show the front of the V5C where it says in big bold letters
"THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP". It is not your burden
to disprove "ownership" It is the prosecutors burden to prove
it. How do you imagine they can do that beyond a reasonable
doubt
So, if it were to be prosecuted, (hell would freeze over before
that happened), the have to prove that the defendant is the
liable party. There is no legal obligation, even in a criminal
prosecution in the magistrates court for the Keeper to identify
the driver. So, they cannot prove who the driver is and they
cannot prove who the owner is. Cases in the magistrates court
cannot convict on "reasonable doubt".
So, when hell freezes over and they manage to get a magistrate
to issue a summons, you are going to win. Even if that happened
and you were found guilty of breaching railway byelaw 14, any
penalty does not go to SABA or the ToC. It goes to the public
purse. Do you really think that SABA, an unregulated private
parking company that has shareholders is going to waste their
own money on a prosecution when there is no money in it for
them?
Additionally, if they wanted to prosecute, they would have to
get a summons issued within 6 months of the date of the alleged
offence. Impossible under the circumstances, as the date of the
alleged offence was 12 September 2024. Also, as it is, in
reality a fake Penalty Notice, you should report them to the
police (not the useless Action Fraud) for deception under the
Fraud Act.
So, as you can see, they are not actually trying to pursue you
under railway byelaws. They are pursuing you under threat of a
civil claim for debt. Impossible to do that for an alleged
criminal penalty issued under statutory law.
So, what to do now? With the above in mind, I would first
respond to the utter incompetents at Moorside Legal with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Your Reference 10211180 – Formal Notice of Regulatory
and Criminal Complaint
>
> To: Moorside Legal (help@moorside legal.co.uk)
> From: [Your Name]
> Date: [Insert Date]
>
> Dear Sophie,
>
> Re: Your Letter Dated [Insert Date] – Threat of Civil
Proceedings for Alleged Breach of Railway Byelaws
>
> Your latest correspondence confirms what has been evident from
the outset: that neither you nor your client have the faintest
grasp of the legal framework you are attempting to exploit. Your
continued threats of civil litigation over what was originally
styled as a statutory penalty under Railway Byelaw 14 are not
only legally incoherent—they are professionally reckless.
>
> Let me be clear; your client issued a Penalty Notice, not a
contractual Parking Charge Notice. It was explicitly framed as a
criminal matter, citing the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and
threatening prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court. Now, having
failed to initiate a prosecution within the six-month statutory
limitation period, you are attempting to repackage that same
notice as a civil “debt”—a move that is as desperate as it is
unlawful.
>
> This is a textbook abuse of process.
>
> You are attempting to recover a statutory penalty—which can
only be enforced via criminal prosecution—through the civil
courts, under the guise of a contractual claim. This is not
merely a procedural error. It is a deliberate misrepresentation
of legal rights and remedies, and it constitutes fraud by false
representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
>
> You are now formally notified that:
>
> [indent]• A complaint is being submitted to the Solicitors
Regulation Authority against Moorside Legal for conduct falling
below the standards expected of a regulated legal practice. This
includes:
>
> [indent]• Misleading the public and the court
> • Abusing the civil litigation process
> • Failing to act with integrity and independence[/indent]
>
> • A report is being submitted to the police under the Fraud
Act 2006, naming both Moorside Legal and Saba Park Services UK
Ltd as parties to a scheme to obtain money through deception.
> • A complaint is being escalated to the Information
Commissioner’s Office, as your client appears to have accessed
DVLA keeper data under false pretences—claiming statutory
enforcement powers they do not possess.[/indent]
>
> You are personally and professionally liable for your actions.
>
> You are not debt collectors. You are supposedly a firm of
solicitors. You are held to a higher standard. The fact that you
are now parroting the language of ZZPS—an unregulated debt
recovery outfit—only compounds your liability. Your refusal to
disclose the landowner contract, your reliance on PoFA
inapplicable to railway land, and your attempt to pass off a £70
“debt recovery” surcharge as legitimate are all further evidence
of bad faith.
>
> Should you or your client proceed to issue a claim, I will:
>
> [indent]• Apply for the claim to be struck out under CPR
3.4(2)(b) and (c)
> • Seek a wasted costs order under CPR 46.8
> • Submit your pleadings to the SRA as evidence of professional
misconduct[/indent]
>
> You have now been warned. You are on notice. Any further
attempt to pursue this matter will be treated as harassment and
reported accordingly.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
You also need to report Moorside Legal to the SRA. Use following
which can be sent by email but you will need to attach the
evidence listed:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Regulatory Complaint – Moorside Legal (Ref: 10211180)
– Misleading Conduct and Abuse of Process
>
> To: redalert@sra.org.uk
> From: [Your Full Name]
> Address: [Your Address]
> Email: [Your Email]
> Phone: [Your Phone Number]
> Date: [Insert Date]
>
> Details of the Firm Being Reported
>
> Firm Name: Moorside Legal
> Address:
HTML https://moorsidelegal.co.uk
> Reference Number: 10211180
>
> Solicitor Contacted: Sophie, Collections Administrator (no
surname provided)
>
> Summary of Complaint
>
> I am reporting Moorside Legal for serious breaches of the SRA
Standards and Regulations, including:
>
> [indent]• Misleading the public and the court
> • Abuse of the civil litigation process
> • Failure to act with integrity
> • Knowingly misrepresenting legal rights and remedies[/indent]
>
> Background
>
> Moorside Legal is acting on behalf of Saba Park Services UK
Ltd in relation to a Penalty Notice issued under Railway Byelaw
14. The notice was explicitly styled as a criminal matter,
threatening prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court and citing the
Criminal Justice Act 1982.
>
> However, Moorside Legal has now issued a Letter of Claim
threatening civil proceedings in the County Court to recover the
same sum—despite the fact that:
>
> [indent]• The original notice was not a contractual Parking
Charge Notice but a statutory penalty.
> • The six-month limitation period for criminal prosecution
under Byelaw 24(1) has expired.
> • There is no valid contractual basis for a civil claim.
> • The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not apply to
railway land, yet they falsely claim compliance with it.
> • They refuse to disclose the landowner contract, in breach of
the IPC Code of Practice.[/indent]
>
> Their conduct is not only misleading—it is legally incoherent
and professionally reckless. They are attempting to reframe a
criminal penalty as a civil debt, which is an abuse of process
and risks misleading the court.
>
> Why This Breaches SRA Rules
>
> This conduct appears to breach the following SRA Principles:
>
> [indent]• Principle 1: Uphold the rule of law and the proper
administration of justice
> • Principle 2: Act with integrity
> • Principle 4: Act in the best interests of each client
> • Principle 5: Provide a proper standard of service
> • Principle 6: Behave in a way that maintains the trust the
public places in you and in the provision of legal
services[/indent]
>
> It also raises concerns under Paragraphs 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, and
2.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors.
>
> Supporting Documents
>
> I have attached the following:
>
> [/indent]• The original Penalty Notice issued by SABA
> • Moorside Legal’s Letter of Claim dated 6 May 2025
> • My response dated 19 May 2025
> • Moorside Legal’s reply dated [Insert Date]
> • Evidence of their misrepresentation of PoFA and refusal to
disclose key documents[/indent]
>
> Requested Outcome
>
> I ask the SRA to investigate whether Moorside Legal’s conduct
amounts to a breach of professional standards and to take
appropriate regulatory action. Their behaviour undermines public
trust in the legal profession and risks misleading both
consumers and the courts.
>
> Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise on next
steps.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
--- End Quote ---
I would also report both SABA and Moorside Legal to the police.
Do not use Action Fraud. Report them to your local police
station.
Most police forces in England and Wales have a dedicated
Economic Crime Unit (ECU) or Fraud Investigation Team. You can:
[indent]• Visit your local police force’s website and search for
“economic crime” or “fraud investigation”.
• Alternatively, call 101 and ask to speak directly with the
fraud or economic crime unit (not the general call
handler).[/indent]
You’ll need to clearly explain:
[indent]• Who is involved: Moorside Legal and Saba Park Services
UK Ltd
• What they did: Attempted to obtain money by falsely
representing a civil debt based on a statutory penalty
• Why it’s fraud: It meets the elements of Fraud by false
representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006:
[indent]• A false representation (claiming a civil debt exists)
• Made dishonestly
• With intent to make a gain for another or cause a loss to
you[/indent][/indent]
If they want you to send them anything, then use this as your
template for reporting them:
--- Quote ---
> To: [Local Police Force Economic Crime Unit]
> Subject: Criminal Complaint – Fraud by False Representation
(Moorside Legal/Saba Park Services UK Ltd)
> From: [Your Full Name]
> Date: [Insert Date]
>
> Dear Officer,
>
> I wish to report a matter of suspected fraud by false
representation, contrary to Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
>
> The parties involved are:
>
> [indent]• Moorside Legal, acting on behalf of
> • SABA Park Services UK Ltd
> • ZZPS Ltd[/indent]
>
> They have issued a demand for payment of £170, claiming it is
a civil debt arising from a Penalty Notice issued under Railway
Byelaw 14. However, this notice was originally styled as a
criminal penalty, citing the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and
threatening prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court.
>
> I believe this conduct constitutes:
>
> [indent]• Fraud by false representation (Fraud Act 2006, s.2)
> • Possession of articles for use in fraud (s.6)
> • Potentially blackmail (Theft Act 1968, s.21)[/indent]
>
> Now, having failed to prosecute within the 6-month statutory
limitation period, they are attempting to reframe the same
notice as a civil contractual debt, despite:
>
> [indent]• No valid contract being pleaded
> • No keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (which does not apply to railway land)
> • No legal basis to recover a statutory penalty through civil
proceedings[/indent]
>
> This conduct appears to be a deliberate attempt to obtain
money through deception. It satisfies the elements of fraud
under Section 2 Fraud Act 2006, Possession of Articles for Use
in Fraud – Section 6, Fraud Act 2006 and Blackmail/Unwarranted
Demand with Menaces – Section 21, Theft Act 1968
>
> [indent]• A false representation that a civil debt exists
> • Made dishonestly
> • With intent to cause me loss or make a gain for their client
> • The demand is unwarranted and made with a view to gain, and
may cross into blackmail territory.[/indent]
>
> I request that this matter be investigated as a criminal
offence. I am happy to provide all supporting documentation,
including the original notice, correspondence from Moorside
Legal, and evidence of the misrepresentations made.Please
confirm how I may formally submit evidence and whether this
matter will be assigned a crime reference number.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
>
> [Your Contact Details]
--- End Quote ---
If you meed to refer them to me, then contact me by PM and I
will assist where possible.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page