DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82732--------------------------------------------------
SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: martin_t
Date: July 25, 2025, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I parked at Cheddington Station on July 10th. On leaving I
attempted to pay via their app but was unable to log in,
probably due to no phone signal. I'd visited previously a couple
of years ago and parked outside their car park because I was
unable to pay at the machine - due to lack of phone signal.
Once back home a few hours later I attempted to pay again, as
they have the facility to 'pay late'. Another failure to login,
but this time there was plenty of wifi. So, not my end.
After some time, maybe an hour or two, I actually managed to
connect via their app. So, IMO, there must have been an issue at
their end for a few hours.
However, when I attempted to pay on the app, I immediately
received a message from my bank advising me my card was rejected
due to the card expiry date being incorrect. I immediately
corrected that on the app and tried again. I can't recall
exactly what happened when I tried paying again, but there was
no message from the bank and there was no money transferred.
Then I contacted saba via their webform. They claimed my card
details were incorrect. It's impossible on the app to see what
card details were entered by me, but much later I proved (at
least to myself) that all details were correct.
They also suggested going to their website and paying as a
'guest' (i.e. not logged in) or phoning 'customer support'.
I have a phobia about 'customer support' - have you ever tried
getting a doctor's appointment, or worse still, attempting to
sort out Vodaphone? That one ended up after a very considerable
to and fro with me telling them to take me to court. They
didn't.
So, I logged in as a guest. No dice. see the screenshot of the
error message which I would suggest is nothing at all to do with
my bank and everything to do with their end (i.e. whoever
provides their payment services).
They suggested contacting my bank, because that's who they're
blaming, if it isn't me. I did so, and the bank couldn't come up
with any suggestions.
When I was in the middle of replying to the bank (on the 14th) I
just had the idea of trying to pay again. I created a 'new'
payment method, which was the same card as I'd previously
entered and corrected. And it worked. But I had to pay for a
time period when I wasn't there as their Ts&Cs won't allow
payment after midnight after the day of the parking event. I
also paid with my 'old' card for yet another time period to see
if it would work. It did. By now I thought I may be confused
about which card I was actually using (as all you can see of the
card details on the app is the last four digits) so I actually
deleted the card I'd last used and paid with the remaining,
almost certainly the original one, and that worked too.
Surprised - not.
Then I claimed my overpayment back. 'Customer support' ended up
telling me that 'it doesn't work like that - here's all your
money back and you can expect a fine too'. Nice.
This seems rather long, but I didn't want to drip-feed details.
I can post up all the emails from saba (apart from my first
message which was entered into their webform) and all the
correspondance from the bank if it is useful.
I'm aware of the threads 'Saba Parking Services - Railway
parking site - debt collector before initial notice?' which is
still ongoing, and 'Byelaws offence - Taken to magistrates for
private parking ticket' which sadly fizzled out.
Here's the invoice:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A-XwBfwNLFJjTJDwWnAEbDCsTCa1s4fo/view?usp=drive_link
The rear of the invoice is just methods of payment, debt advice
links, link to complaints website and GDPR statement.
Saba website error message:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eIk4pzr-MxvQXF9BLOryUfp_HI4TFxjm/view?usp=drive_link
(Couldn't get imgur working despite reading the instructions)
Google maps:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/oqk9kQYLqPusgA2x7[/url]
I'm the RK of the vehicle, and I've always referred to myself as
'I', as in 'I tried to pay' etc, though I have no proof of this
in my original, webform, contact with saba.
So, appeal or wait for court?
#Post#: 82784--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: martin_t
Date: July 26, 2025, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Links to files now accessible (sorry for being an idiot...)
#Post#: 82840--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: b789
Date: July 26, 2025, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What a wasted effort on your part! A SABA (or any other
unregulated private parking firm such as APCOA) Penalty Notice
is a fake instrument of fraud.
The wording in the SABA-issued Penalty Notice (PN) is deeply
problematic, misleading, procedurally defective, and legally
dubious in several respects.
1. Misrepresentation of Enforcement Options (Civil vs Criminal)
The PN states:
[indent]"An offence has been committed by breaching Byelaw 14...
our Client has the option to pursue you through the Magistrates
Court by way of a private criminal prosecution... Alternatively,
legal action may be taken via the Civil Procedure in the County
Court..."[/indent]
This falsely implies that the operator can choose between
criminal prosecution and civil litigation.
A breach of Byelaw 14 is a criminal matter only. There is no
contractual or statutory basis for issuing a civil claim in the
county court for a breach of a statutory byelaw. If the operator
wishes to pursue a criminal penalty, it must lay information
before a magistrates’ court within 6 months as per Magistrates'
Courts Act 1980, s.127(1).
The hybrid “pay us or we might prosecute—or sue you in the
County Court” message is legally incoherent and is a deliberate
attempt to pressure payment by suggesting multiple enforcement
routes that do not exist.
A breach of Railway Byelaw 14 is a summary-only criminal
offence. No civil liability arises unless the alleged breach can
be framed as a separate contractual matter, which this notice
does not do.
2. False or Ambiguous Authority for Data Access
[indent]"...your data has been released by the DVLA as our
client has reasonable cause... Their records indicate you were
the registered keeper on the date the offence was
committed."[/indent]
This implies the DVLA released data on the basis of an
established offence, not merely a suspected breach. The language
is misleading because:
[indent]• The operator has not proven an offence has occurred.
• No conviction exists.
• The DVLA provides data under Regulation 27(1)(e) for
reasonable cause, but not for enforcement of hypothetical or
presumed criminal offences.[/indent]
Using DVLA data for private enforcement of alleged criminal
offences — especially in a case where no prosecution has been
commenced — must be very carefully justified. The language used
here is legally sloppy and arguably exceeds what is permitted
under the KADOE contract with DVLA.
3. Misuse of the Term "Penalty"
[indent]"The above penalty is now due..."[/indent]
This uses the term “penalty” as if it is a fixed fine backed by
law, when in fact:
[indent]• No court has imposed a fine.
• No legal process has occurred.
• A Penalty Notice of this kind is a voluntary out-of-court
disposal with no legal compulsion to pay unless or until the
matter is prosecuted and proven.[/indent]
Any notice demanding payment for an alleged breach must clearly
state that payment is voluntary and does not constitute an
admission of guilt or a statutory penalty, unless such a penalty
has been lawfully imposed by a court. Failure to provide this
information constitutes a misleading commercial practice under
Sections 225 to 229 of the Digital Markets, Competition and
Consumers Act 2024, and may also involve an omission of material
information prohibited under Section 227:
[indent]• Section 226 covers false or misleading information,
deceptive presentation, and confusion with other traders
• Schedule 20 of the DMCC Act (Banned Practices) includes
falsely claiming to have authority to impose fines or
penalties[/indent]
4. Reference to “Additional Costs” Lacks Legal Basis
[indent]Additional costs will be incurred should the case
progress through either the Civil or Magistrates
courts."[/indent]
In a criminal case, prosecution costs may be awarded upon
conviction — but:
[indent]• That’s a matter for the court to decide, not the
private operator.
• In civil claims, no claim can be brought for a byelaw breach
unless an entirely separate contractual cause of action exists
(which this PN does not assert).[/indent]
Suggesting additional costs may apply if payment is not made
misleads the recipient into believing they must pay now to avoid
a guaranteed penalty later — when in fact no legal process has
even begun.
5. Lack of Clarity About Who “Our Client” Is
[indent]"...our Client has reasonable cause..."
"...our Client has the option to pursue you..."[/indent]
Nowhere does the PN explicitly confirm who “our Client” is, or
whether they are a Train Operating Company (TOC) or just a
parking subcontractor.
For enforcement under Railway Byelaws to be valid:
[indent]• The prosecuting party must be the "relevant person"
under Byelaw 24(1) — i.e. the TOC.
• A private parking contractor must clearly state it is acting
on behalf of the TOC, and not purport to act in its own right.
• Failure to do so is unlawfully exercising a public function
and renders the notice misleading and unenforceable.[/indent]
So, in summary... The Penalty Notice issued by SABA contains a
number of serious legal deficiencies. It misrepresents the
available enforcement mechanisms by implying that both criminal
prosecution and civil action are viable for a single statutory
byelaw offence, when in fact only prosecution in a magistrates’
court is lawfully available. The reference to an “offence”
having already been committed is misleading, as no such
determination has been made by a court.
Furthermore, the notice fails to make clear whether the issuer
is the relevant prosecuting authority under Byelaw 24(1), or
acting with authority from a Train Operating Company (TOC).
These ambiguities, along with the implied threat of additional
costs and penalties absent a court process, breach the Digital
Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), particularly
under Section 226 and Schedule 20. Any such Penalty Notice must
clearly and transparently distinguish between an actual
court-imposed penalty and a voluntary offer to dispose of an
alleged matter without formal prosecution.
You are a victim of fraud by false representation and it should
be reported under the Fraud Act 2006 to the police. Do not use
Action Fraud. You will need to contact your local police force
Economic Crime unit although they my refer you to the British
Transport Police. Mention The Fraud Act 2006, s.2 – Fraud by
false representation.
#Post#: 82844--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: b789
Date: July 26, 2025, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should also make a formal complaint to the DVLA. Here’s how
to make a DVLA complaint:
[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 about the use of
DVLA-supplied keeper data by SABA UK Ltd, BPA AOS member, in
connection with a Penalty Notice issued for an alleged breach of
Railway Byelaw 14.
>
> The notice states: “[i]An offence has been committed... our
Client has the option to pursue you through the Magistrates
Court by way of a private criminal prosecution. Alternatively,
legal action may be taken via the Civil Procedure in the County
Court...[/I]”
>
> This is legally false and deeply misleading. A breach of
Railway Byelaw 14 is a summary-only criminal offence and can
only be pursued via prosecution in the magistrates’ court. It is
not a civil debt and cannot be recovered via the Civil Procedure
Rules. No such debt exists unless a magistrates’ court convicts
and imposes a fine.
>
> SABA’s use of DVLA data to issue this hybrid criminal/civil
threat is not only dishonest but arguably fraudulent within the
meaning of the Fraud Act 2006, section 2 (fraud by false
representation), as it misrepresents enforcement options with
intent to secure payment.
>
> Further, this conduct constitutes a misleading commercial
practice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers
Act 2024 (DMCC), which now governs unlawful and unfair trading.
The threat of civil litigation for a criminal byelaw breach is
simply a fiction invented to coerce payment.
>
> I am not disputing the “reasonable cause” basis for the DVLA’s
release of keeper data under Regulation 27(1)(e). I am asking
whether the DVLA accepts that its data is being used to issue
penalty demands that falsely suggest civil recovery is
available, when only a criminal prosecution can apply.
>
> This is a misuse of personal data obtained under KADOE and a
manipulation of the statutory enforcement process. I ask that
the DVLA refer this conduct to its compliance and enforcement
team and confirm whether such notices are authorised and lawful
use of DVLA data.
>
> If not, I expect the DVLA to take appropriate enforcement
steps against the company under the KADOE contract.
>
> I have attached relevant supporting material with this
statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for
this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information
if required.
>
> Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
> Date: [INSERT DATE]
--- End Quote ---
Make sure you upload a copy of the Penalty Notice, both sides.
#Post#: 82860--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: martin_t
Date: July 26, 2025, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey, thanks for all that :-)
I was unaware of most/all of what you've covered until several
days after the event, while I was just noodling aroung the forum
not looking for anything specific, and discovered the other saba
posts ('saba' not 'SABA', in deference to their naff graphics
branding).
So, rather than just give them the finger, I thought I'd show a
bit of willing, not knowing they, apparently, have no teeth.
Can I expect them to do nothing, or will they attempt to turn
the screw? I'm pretty sure they will, but by how much, I have no
idea. Or will the TOC prosecute me?? (Hahaha - I think...).
As you say, I've already expended considerable effort on this,
but I'm pretty ****ed off, and I do fancy rattling some cages
now. The DVLA business is easy, as you've given me the script.
The fraud complaint will obviously take a fair amount of effort,
but right now I feel like taking this on.
I totally promise to keep this updated, even if it means that I
report back that I'm giving up because it's too difficult or
time-consuming, or I've been too intimidated and succumbed to
the pressure. I just hate threads where the OP diappears without
trace.
#Post#: 82862--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: b789
Date: July 26, 2025, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you identify the driver when you made contact? You received
the PN as the Keeper of the vehicle. There is no legal
obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver. Even if you did
identify the driver, inadvertently or otherwise, you won't be
paying a penny to Saba.
They will try to scare you by sending debt recovery letters,
usually from ZZPS. You can safely ignore ZZPS and any other debt
collector. They are powerless to actually to anything except to
try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to
pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Of course, they cannot sue you in the county court because this
is not a civil matter. I tis not a Parking Charge Notice (PCN
issued under civil law. Also, they cannot and will mot take out
a private criminal prosecution in the magistrates court because
they are not a prosecuting authority and I will place however
much anyone would care to bet that they have absolutely no
authority from the Train Operating Company (TOC) to act on their
behalf.
Even if they were to try, if they were successful, they would
get no money from it as any fine is paid to the public purse,
not their bank account. But of course they won't do that. Even
if they did, they'd have no chance to be successful. In the
magistrates court, the evidential burden is to beyond a
reasonable doubt. Unlike the county court where it is on the
balance of probabilities, they have to make their case that you
are the "owner".
I suggest you try and find out who the owner of a vehicle is.
They will say that it is the person in whose name the vehicle is
registered. However, you only need to look at the front of your
V5C document and read the very bold words which state "THIS
DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP". You could suggest they go
check the register of 'vehicle owners', if there ever was such.
thing, which there isn't. So, how do they prove 'ownership'
beyond a reasonable doubt?
Nothing will come of this even if you ignore everything. The
debt collector cannot sue you and Saba certainly won't as it
would expose their fraudulent PN.
#Post#: 82864--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: martin_t
Date: July 26, 2025, 2:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No, I did not identify as the driver, nor the keeper. I referred
to myself as 'I', as in 'I am the person trying to pay you' kind
of thing. However, I have no idea if they have pics or vids of
anyone entering or exiting the vehicle concerned.
Thanks for all the rest. It's somewhat amusing. I hope it stays
that way! I know you are confident it will, but this is my first
rodeo...
#Post#: 82899--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: b789
Date: July 27, 2025, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to "identify" as the Keeper! They know you are
the Keeper because they received your details from the DVLA. Of
course you can identify as the Keeper. That is the whole point.
The Keeper is known. The driver is unknown unless the Keeper
blabs the drivers identity when there is no legal obligation to
do so.
In future, should you ever find yourself in receipt of a PN to
PCN from an unregulated private parking firm, you must always
refer to the the driver in the third person. No "I did this or
that", only "the driver did this or that".
#Post#: 82964--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: martin_t
Date: July 27, 2025, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah, yeah... I don't know how many times I read words to that
effect - and yet :-\
Stiil, I don't think anyone knows who the owner is!
#Post#: 82965--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA, railway property, Penalty Notice to OWNER
DIR By: b789
Date: July 27, 2025, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: martin_t link ---
>
> I don't think anyone knows who the owner is!
>
--- End Quote ---
How would anyone know who the owner is? unless the Keeper tells
them, they have no idea. The Keeper is under no legal obligation
to anyone who the owner is. Only the police could retire that
for forensic investigation into a crime.
Minor parking contraventions were decriminalised over 20 years
ago.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page