DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103117--------------------------------------------------
SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: Kbonner
Date: December 18, 2025, 5:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/HkB3VZhY/20251218_231915NEW.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/75JSRV4d
Hello,
The driver has been issued this ticket due to a breach of the
terms and conditions of parking on private land, at the location
noted above (in the link).
Could you please tell me if there are any gorunds for appeal.
Thank you so much, in advance, for any help you can give.
Kind regards
Kevin.
#Post#: 103130--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 18, 2025, 10:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is this the station car park?
#Post#: 103246--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: December 19, 2025, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity
is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known
keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal
the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or
assumptions can be made.
The location is NOT relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012
which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they
cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver
to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper. SABA cannot hold a registered
keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is
under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, SABA will
be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because
Laughton Main TfL car park is not 'relevant land'.
>
> If TfL wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under TfL
Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another
matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is
also not legally possible because SABA is not the landowner and
your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty.
It is created for SABA’s own profit (as opposed to a bylaws
penalty that goes to the public purse) and SABA has relied on
contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
SABA have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 103249--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: December 19, 2025, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You should also report SABA to the DVLA as they have breached
section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP which states:
--- Quote ---
> The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its
design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held
liable.
--- End Quote ---
They have stated in the NtK that they will hold the Keeper
liable:
--- Quote ---
> You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given, the
Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both
the name and current address of the driver, we may recover any
unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you.
--- End Quote ---
A breach of the PPSCoP is a breach of the KADOE contract with
the DVLA and they are therefore using your DVLA supplied data
unlawfully.
#Post#: 103280--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: roythebus
Date: December 20, 2025, 12:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
WARNING... remember there's been an amendment to railway
bye-laws which ISTR came into force at the end of November. I
note this PCN is before the date of the amendment. But bear it
in mind for future advice, and I'm not sure this amendment
includes TfL railways.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/amended-railway-byelaws-from-26122025/
#Post#: 103331--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: December 20, 2025, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PoFA amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with TfL (or TfL
subsidiary) properties. PoFA 3(1)(b) applies:
--- Quote ---
> 3(1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land
(including land above or below ground level) other than—
>
> (a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the
meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
>
> (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a
traffic authority;
>
> (c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on
which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
--- End Quote ---
Then look at PoFA 3(2)(c):
--- Quote ---
> 3(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—
>
> “parking place” has the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of
the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
> “traffic authority” means each of the following—
>
> (a) the Secretary of State;
>
> (b) the Welsh Ministers;
>
> (c) Transport for London;
>
> (d) the Common Council of the City of London;
>
> (e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or
district;
>
> (f) a parish or community council;
>
> (g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
--- End Quote ---
TfL provides/controls the parking place; Saba operates as TfL’s
contractor/agent; therefore the site is excluded from “relevant
land” under PoFA 3(1)(b). The 2025 railway-byelaws amendment
does not touch 3(1)(b), so nothing changes on Boxing Day for
TfL-provided/controlled car parks.
Use the above points for a formal complaint to the DVLA and your
MP.
#Post#: 103533--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: Kbonner
Date: December 22, 2025, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, to everyone that has put replies here. I really
appreciate the time spent on this. We'll send the appeal and see
how they respond!
#Post#: 103579--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: December 22, 2025, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They'll more likely than not reject the appeal, which is why you
don't put much effort into the initial one. It is at POPLA that
you will use the legal argument broadside on them.
#Post#: 103582--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: December 22, 2025, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to manage the OP's expectations, from reading voluminous
posts here :), he/she should also expect any POPLA appeal to
fail.
Stick in there, the advice you receive here is 99.99% bombproof
and you won't pay a penny as long as you follow everything you
are told to do :)
#Post#: 103638--------------------------------------------------
Re: SABA Parking Charge Re: Failure to Obtain a Valid Ticket
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: December 23, 2025, 2:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I fancy that POPLA might find in the defendants favour on this
one because of the parking operators errors.
Also, I've recently noticed a number of cases where the operator
pulls out of the POPLA process in certain kinds of case. In
particular, where the operator breaks the rules and implies PoFA
liability either by specifically mentioning PoFA or by providing
a wording which mimics the PoFA mechanism and implies that the
keeper can be persued for the charge.
I don't know about others but I'm beginning to suspect that
there maybe some kind of unofficial 'back-channel' between POPLA
and the parking operators. I suspect that POPLA might warn an
operator about a particular case and that allows the operator to
withdraw the case before POPLA have to issue a formal response.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page