You can respond to the DVLA fob-off with the following:
Subject: Formal Challenge to DVLA Step 2 Response – Evidential Misconduct and Regulatory Failure
Dear Mrs N Smith,
Your Step 2 response dated 31 July 2025 is unacceptable and fails to address the clear evidence I submitted regarding the unlawful use of my personal data by SABA Park Services UK Ltd. The DVLA’s reply appears to deliberately avoid the issue, shift blame, and protect a system that benefits the unregulated private parking industry—a system from which the DVLA earns over £30 million a year by selling keeper data.
I provided detailed evidence showing that SABA accessed my data under the claim of enforcing Railway Byelaws, but then used it to pursue a civil debt through Moorside Legal. They issued a misleading “Penalty Notice” and made threats implying criminal liability, despite having no intention of prosecuting the matter in court. This is a clear breach of the purpose limitation principle under Article 5(1)(b) of UK GDPR. It also violates the KADOE contract and consumer protection laws.
Your response ignores this evidence entirely and instead repeats generic statements about DVLA policy. It wrongly claims that SABA becomes the sole Data Controller once they receive the data. This is incorrect. The DVLA retains responsibility for ensuring that data released under KADOE is used only for the lawful purpose for which it was disclosed. The ICO has made clear that the DVLA’s role is not passive.
It is also unacceptable that your letter fails to mention my right to escalate the complaint to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA). This omission breaches your own complaints procedure and further undermines the credibility of your response.
Given the DVLA’s financial interest in maintaining this flawed system, it is clear that there is a conflict of interest in how these complaints are handled. The refusal to investigate misuse of data by companies like SABA suggests that the DVLA is prioritising revenue over lawful conduct.
I now formally request that the DVLA:
1. Acknowledge that SABA’s use of my data was unlawful and incompatible with the original purpose.
2. Confirm whether this constitutes a breach of the KADOE contract and UK GDPR.
3. Suspend or revoke SABA’s access to the KADOE system pending investigation.
4. Provide full details for escalating this complaint to the Independent Complaints Assessor.
If the DVLA continues to deflect responsibility, I will escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, my MP, and request referral to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Please confirm receipt and provide a complaint reference for this formal challenge.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Yet more masterclass in obfuscation and evasion. I suggest you respond to Rachel Hopkins with the following:
Subject: Response to Minister’s Letter Regarding Saba’s Fraudulent “Penalty Notice”
Dear Rachel,
Thank you for forwarding the response from Alex Norris MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Building Safety, Fire and Local Growth.
Regrettably, the Minister’s reply exemplifies the institutional evasion that allows private parking companies like Saba Limited to continue issuing fraudulent documents without consequence. His letter fails to engage with the central issue I raised: that Saba has issued a document titled “Penalty Notice” despite having no prosecutorial authority under Railway Byelaws. This is not a civil dispute—it is a deliberate act of deception designed to mislead recipients into believing they are subject to criminal sanction.
The suggestion to appeal via Saba’s internal process or POPLA is entirely misplaced. POPLA adjudicates civil Parking Charge Notices, not documents that falsely purport to be statutory penalties. Referring me to the British Parking Association—a trade body with no regulatory powers and a vested interest in shielding its members—is not a meaningful remedy. It is deflection.
The use of “Penalty Notice” by a private company without lawful authority constitutes a false representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. It is an instrument of coercion, not compliance. The government’s failure to acknowledge or address this abuse is deeply concerning.
While I intend to contribute to the consultation referenced in the Minister’s letter, I must stress that consultations and codes of practice are no substitute for enforcement. Fraud is not a matter for trade associations—it is a matter for regulators, law enforcement, and Parliament.
I therefore ask that you escalate this matter further and seek:
• A direct response from the Minister addressing the allegation of fraud, not a generic overview of appeal routes.
• Clarification on whether the government considers the use of “Penalty Notice” by Saba to be lawful, and if not, what enforcement action will be taken.
• Referral of this issue to the relevant Select Committee or the Parliamentary Ombudsman if the Minister continues to deflect.
Thank you again for your support. I remain determined to see this abuse exposed and addressed.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
You don't have to use their form to raise a complaint with the SRA. The email address I gave you "redalert" is for urgent cases. Please keep to the advice.
As for the police, which is your local police force? Are you covered by the Metropolitan Police in London? Or are you elsewhere in the country?
Here is some advice on how to deal with the fob-off you are getting from 101 and their attempt to redirect you to the useless Action Fraud:
For London, you can contact the Metropolitan Police Economic Crime Command (also known as FALCON – Fraud and Linked Crime Online). While they don’t publish a direct public email, you can write to:
Metropolitan Police Service – Economic Crime Command New Scotland Yard Victoria Embankment London SW1A 2JL
Or email the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s Office directly at: commissioner@met.police.uk Explain that you are reporting a suspected offence under the Fraud Act 2006 and that 101 has failed to escalate the matter appropriately.
Outside of London, Eech police force in England and Wales has a fraud or economic crime team, even if it's not publicly advertised. Here's how to reach them:
• Visit your local police force’s website (e.g. West Midlands Police, Greater Manchester Police, etc.)
• Search for “economic crime”, “fraud investigation”, or “report fraud”
• If no direct contact is listed, use the general contact form and explicitly request escalation to the Economic Crime Unit
You can also call 101, but when you do, say:
“I am reporting a suspected offence under the Fraud Act 2006, involving false representation and attempted unlawful gain. This is not a scam or cybercrime. I require this to be escalated to your Economic Crime Unit, not Action Fraud.”
If they still try to redirect you, ask to speak to a supervisor or duty inspector.
If 101 refuses to escalate, write directly to the Chief Constable of your local force. Here's a template:
To: Chief Constable [Name] [Your Local Police Force]
[Force HQ Address]
Subject: Urgent Request for Investigation – Fraud by False Representation (Moorside Legal Ltd/SABA Park Services Ltd)
Dear Chief Constable,
I am writing to report a suspected criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006, involving:
• Saba Park Services UK Ltd
• Moorside Legal Ltd
• ZZPS Ltd
These parties have issued a document styled as a Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaw 14, threatening criminal prosecution and a £1000 fine. However, they are now attempting to recover this sum via civil proceedings, falsely claiming it is a contractual debt.
This is a false representation of legal authority and enforcement powers, made with intent to cause loss and gain for another. It appears to satisfy the elements of:
• Section 2: Fraud by false representation
• Section 3: Failure to disclose material facts
• Section 4: Abuse of position
• Section 6: Possession of articles for use in fraud
I attempted to report this via 101 but was improperly redirected to Action Fraud, which is not appropriate for this type of structured, document-based fraud. I am therefore requesting that this matter be referred to your Economic Crime Unit for proper investigation.
I am happy to provide all supporting documentation and a full written statement.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
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:
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:
• 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:
• Misleading the public and the court
• Abusing the civil litigation process
• Failing to act with integrity and independence
• 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.
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:
• 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
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]
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:
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: 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:
• Misleading the public and the court
• Abuse of the civil litigation process
• Failure to act with integrity
• Knowingly misrepresenting legal rights and remedies
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:
• 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.
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:
• 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
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]
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:
• 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).
You’ll need to clearly explain:
• 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:
• A false representation (claiming a civil debt exists)
• Made dishonestly
• With intent to make a gain for another or cause a loss to you
If they want you to send them anything, then use this as your template for reporting them:
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:
• Moorside Legal, acting on behalf of
• SABA Park Services UK Ltd
• ZZPS Ltd
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:
• 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)
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:
• 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
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
• 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.
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]
If you meed to refer them to me, then contact me by PM and I will assist where possible.
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: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/head-of-complaints
For the webform, include something like this:
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.
Then upload the following as a PDF attachment:
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:
• 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.
This conduct is unlawful, misleading, and in breach of:
• 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).
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:
• 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.
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]
Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint. I advise you to action this immediately:
• Go to: 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.
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:
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.
Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:
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]
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:
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:
“A BREACH OF RAILWAY BYELAWS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH CAN BE PURSUED BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE PROSECUTION IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT.”
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:
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?
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]
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:
https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons
Also, did you submit a DVLA complaint?
Should you be worried? Absolutely not. I have already explained to you, this is not a legitimate Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and it is not a valid Penalty Notice (PN). It is neither. It is a deliberately fabricated hybrid, falsely presented to look like an official legal document in order to deceive. It is designed to mimic the appearance and tone of statutory enforcement, knowing full well that it carries no lawful authority whatsoever.
What makes this even more serious is that the company has now repackaged the expired and unlawful Penalty Notice as a civil debt—a move that is not only dishonest but legally impossible. A genuine Penalty Notice under the railway byelaws is a criminal matter, and must be prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court by a public body, within six months of the alleged offence. In this case, the alleged offence took place on 12th September 2024, meaning the six-month statutory limitation expired on 12th March 2025. That legal window has closed. The case is dead in law, and cannot be revived in any court, criminal or civil.
However, it is criminal act by SABA and their agents because there is an intention to deceive recipients into paying under the false belief that this is a criminal or statutory penalty. This aligns with the criminal offence of fraud by false representation (Fraud Act 2006, s.2) and possibly even blackmail (Theft Act 1968, s.21), particularly as there is an explicit threat of legal or financial consequences unless payment is made.
Their intention is clear: to frighten, confuse, and coerce people—ordinary members of the public—into handing over money under false pretences. That is not a civil dispute. It is a criminal act.
To pursue a demand in the civil courts for a penalty that is not lawfully due, and which has already timed out under criminal law, is not simply an abuse of process—it is a deliberate, calculated attempt to obtain money through deception and intimidation.
This is criminal conduct masquerading as legal procedure. It must be treated as such, and those involved—particularly regulated legal professionals like Moorside Legal—must be held fully accountable under both professional and criminal law.
This should not be reported through Action Fraud. Action Fraud is not a police force; it only collects data and passes cases to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), which investigates only a small fraction. It does not issue crime reference numbers in the way local police do, nor does it guarantee that a crime report will be properly recorded or pursued.
Where the suspect is known—as in this case (SABA, or their legal representatives such as Moorside Legal)—and the fraud is targeted, ongoing, and involves documented threats, the matter falls under the jurisdiction of your local police force, who are responsible for investigating under the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). This requires that a crime be recorded when the victim reports one, unless there is credible evidence to the contrary.
This is not a generic scam. It involves a deliberate and unlawful false representation by a known legal entity. A document falsely labelled as a Penalty Notice, with legalistic threats and a demand for payment, was issued without any statutory authority. Worse still, once the six-month legal deadline to prosecute expired, the company repackaged the void Penalty Notice as a civil debt and began issuing threats of litigation—despite knowing that no such liability exists. That is a textbook example of fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006, and potentially blackmail/extortion, due to the misuse of legal process and threats of financial harm.
This is a serious and ongoing criminal act, and must be treated as such.
To report to the police, attend or call your local police station (via 101) and request to report a crime. Do not accept redirection to Action Fraud. Ask for the matter to be recorded locally as fraud by false representation and attempted blackmail/extortion.
State that:
• The suspect is a known legal entity (e.g. APCOA, SABA, Moorside Legal);
• The notice falsely claims to be a statutory Penalty Notice under railway byelaws;
• The alleged offence occurred more than six months ago, meaning it is out of time for prosecution;
• The company has now attempted to enforce the expired criminal notice as a civil debt, through threats of litigation.
• Provide the notice and supporting documentation showing:
• Misleading use of the term “Penalty Notice”;
• Threats of court action and further enforcement;
• Payment instructions to a private company, not a public authority;
• No reference to enabling legislation or valid civil enforcement grounds;
• Evidence that the criminal time limit (6 months) has expired;
• Any correspondence from their solicitors threatening civil action.
When speaking to the officer, you may wish to phrase it like this:
“I am reporting a crime under the Fraud Act 2006. A private parking company has issued a document purporting to be a statutory Penalty Notice under railway byelaws. Not only do they lack legal authority to issue such notices, but they are now attempting to pursue it as a civil debt after the time limit for any prosecution expired. This is a clear example of fraud by false representation and potentially blackmail, as it involves threats of legal action to induce payment under false pretences. The identity of the company is known, and I have supporting documents. I am asking that this be recorded as a crime and that I be issued with a crime reference number.”
If the officer refuses or tries to redirect you to Action Fraud, politely but firmly cite the National Crime Recording Standard:
If a notifiable offence is reported and the victim believes a crime has occurred, the police must record it unless there is credible evidence to the contrary.
Fraud by a known suspect is a matter for local police, not Action Fraud.
There has been a systemic failure to treat these fake Penalty Notices as the criminal frauds they are. Calling it a “civil issue” or “waste of police time” ignores the fact that this is an intentional abuse of legal process to obtain money by deception. If this is not treated as a crime, then both consumer protection and the integrity of criminal law are being undermined.
Getting your MP involved can also be highly effective—especially if framed correctly. MPs can raise issues via Parliamentary Questions (PQs) or adjournment debates, forcing departments to respond. MPs can write directly to Ministers (e.g. the Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Justice, or Transport Minister) demanding a policy response. They can also refer specific cases to the National Crime Agency, Trading Standards, or Police and Crime Commissioners, giving them political weight.
Here's a draft MP briefing letter and accompanying briefing document you can use or adapt:
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Date]
[MP’s Name]
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear [MP’s Name],
Re: Urgent Action Required – Fraudulent Use of Expired Railway “Penalty Notice” and Misuse of Legal Process
I am writing to you as a constituent to raise a matter of serious concern involving the abuse of legal process by a private parking company operating on railway land. I recently received a document purporting to be a “Penalty Notice” issued under railway byelaws by a private operator, SABA Ltd. The notice was designed to appear as a statutory criminal penalty, yet it had no basis in law and was never enforceable by the issuing company.
Even if it had been a genuine Penalty Notice (which it was not), the alleged offence occurred on 12th September 2024. Under the railway byelaws, any prosecution would have had to commence by 12th March 2025. That deadline has now passed. The legal window for prosecution is closed. The matter is legally defunct.
However, rather than abandon the charge, the company has repackaged the expired and unlawful Penalty Notice as a civil debt and is now issuing threats of court proceedings—despite knowing that no valid liability exists. Worse still, these threats are being issued through a firm of solicitors, Moorside Legal, who appear to be knowingly attempting to enforce a void criminal allegation as if it were a civil claim. This is not a minor administrative failure. It is a deliberate and systematic deception that I believe constitutes fraud by false representation, and arguably extortion, under the Fraud Act 2006.
I have enclosed a briefing which sets out the legal position in detail, including relevant statutory references and the Department for Transport’s position on enforcement under railway byelaws. I hope you will agree that this issue requires urgent attention—not just in my case, but to prevent others from falling victim to similar unlawful tactics.
I respectfully ask you to consider the following actions:
1. Submit a Parliamentary Question to the Home Secretary and/or Secretary of State for Transport, along the following lines:
“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to investigate and prosecute private parking companies and their legal representatives who knowingly issue or pursue expired or unlawful ‘Penalty Notices’ under railway byelaws, and whether such conduct is being treated as fraud by false representation and extortion under the Fraud Act 2006.”
2. Refer this matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as Moorside Legal is acting in breach of their professional obligations by pursuing an unenforceable and misrepresented claim.
3. Raise the issue in Parliament or with the relevant ministerial departments as a matter of urgent public interest and consumer protection.
This is not a dispute over parking. It is a coordinated attempt to misuse the legal system to extract money from the public under false pretences. If allowed to continue, it undermines the distinction between criminal and civil enforcement and erodes confidence in both.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I would be happy to provide any further documents or evidence you require.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
And you can adapt this briefing document (include a copy of both sides of the Penalty Notice) to submit with the letter to your MP:
Briefing Document for MP
Subject: Misuse of "Penalty Notices" by Private Parking Companies on Statutory Land (e.g. Railway Property)
Summary:
This briefing relates to a fraudulent and deeply misleading practice being carried out by a private parking company, SABA Ltd, operating on railway land. This company is issuing documents styled as "Penalty Notices" for alleged breaches of railway byelaws, despite having no statutory authority to do so. These notices are falsely framed to resemble statutory criminal penalties and are intended to intimidate recipients into making payment.
In my case, I received a notice referring to an alleged parking contravention on 12th September 2024. The notice was styled as a Penalty Notice, implying enforcement under the railway byelaws. Under the law, any genuine prosecution for such a breach must be brought in the Magistrates’ Court within six months—i.e., by 12th March 2025. That time has now passed. The legal opportunity to prosecute under Byelaw 24(1) has expired. The case is legally dead.
Despite this, the company has repackaged the expired and unlawful Penalty Notice as a civil debt and is now threatening litigation in the civil courts. This is not only dishonest; it is legally impossible. A genuine Penalty Notice is a matter of criminal law and cannot be transformed into a civil claim once the prosecution window has closed. This act represents a blatant and deliberate attempt to bypass the law.
The original notice is neither a valid Penalty Notice (PN) nor a legitimate Parking Charge Notice (PCN). It is a fraudulent hybrid, deliberately styled to appear authoritative, with the intent of misleading the recipient into believing they face criminal liability. The document makes no distinction between civil and criminal enforcement and does not clarify the actual legal status of the charge. This is a false representation.
A copy of the notice is attached to illustrate the concerns raised. It demonstrates how private companies are misusing the format and language of statutory enforcement to coerce payment under false pretences.
Key Legal Distinctions:
• Byelaw 14(4)(i) refers to the liability of the 'owner' of a vehicle for a parking charge in the event of a contravention. However, there is no official public register of vehicle ownership in the UK. The DVLA's vehicle registration document (V5C) states clearly and in bold: "THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP." Being the registered keeper is not proof, nor even strong evidence, of ownership.
In civil law, the only parties who can be pursued for a parking charge are the driver, or in limited cases, the keeper or hirer—but even then, only under clearly defined statutory conditions such as those set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (which does not apply on railway land). The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities, and persuasive appellate case law (e.g. VCS v Edward [2023]) has confirmed that there can be no presumption that the keeper is the driver, let alone the owner.
In contrast, criminal enforcement under Byelaw 24(1) requires the prosecution to prove the case under the much stricter 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To impose liability on a person as the “owner” in a criminal context would require positive evidence of ownership, not an inference based on keeper status. Any attempt to rely on DVLA keeper data to infer ownership for the purpose of criminal liability is legally flawed and risks misapplication of criminal law.
• Byelaw 24(1) provides for the criminal prosecution of byelaw breaches, but only by a Train Operating Company or a public authority with express statutory powers. Private companies have no authority under this byelaw to prosecute or issue criminal fines.
The DfT has confirmed that while it accepts the use of PCNs for civil enforcement under Byelaw 14, it does not authorise the use of "Penalty Notices" implying enforcement under Byelaw 24(1). To date, no unregulated private parking company, such as APCOA or SABA, has demonstrated any agreement or statutory delegation authorising them to issue Penalty Notices under the authority of a TOC or statutory landowner.
This position aligns with broader transport policy. Following the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991, most parking offences were decriminalised and enforcement shifted to civil law. In line with this, the DfT stated in a 2018 response to POPLA that it does not expect minor parking breaches under Byelaw 14 to be prosecuted under Byelaw 24(1), but rather addressed contractually by private operators managing railway car parks.
Why This Matters:
False Representation and Coercion:
The notice I received implied I had committed a criminal offence and demanded payment directly to a private company. This is misleading and constitutes a false representation under the Fraud Act 2006, and possibly blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.
Funds Misappropriated:
Any legitimate statutory fine would be payable to the public purse. These notices divert payments to a private company, undermining proper enforcement and eroding trust in genuine statutory penalties.
DfT Acknowledgement:
The DfT recognises that Byelaw 14 may be enforced through civil “ticketing” by agents of TOCs, but it has not provided any basis for criminal enforcement powers being delegated to private operators.
Terminology Confusion:
The use of the term “Penalty” in this context is misleading. “Penalty” should be reserved for statutory fines. The correct terminology for a civil charge is “Parking Charge Notice” (PCN). The DfT's own inconsistent use of the word “penalty” in correspondence has inadvertently contributed to this confusion.
Suggested Actions:
I respectfully ask that you:
1. Submit a Parliamentary Question such as:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to investigate and prosecute private parking companies and their legal representatives who knowingly issue or pursue expired or unlawful ‘Penalty Notices’ under railway byelaws, and whether such conduct is being treated as fraud by false representation and extortion under the Fraud Act 2006."
2. Write to the Justice Secretary and/or Home Secretary to:
• Clarify the legal position of such notices;
• Inquire whether this conduct is being treated as potentially fraudulent;
• Ask whether guidance has been issued to police forces on this matter.
• Refer the matter to the local Police and Crime Commissioner and chief constable to seek confirmation of their approach to such practices.
• Refer Moorside Legal’s conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation.
Conclusion:
This issue represents a dangerous abuse of public trust. Private companies are misusing criminal-style notices to collect money unlawfully, and in doing so are targeting ordinary people who are unaware of the legal distinctions involved. Their behaviour is fraudulent, coercive, and systematically misleading.
This matter demands urgent parliamentary scrutiny—not just for my case, but to protect the public from this growing pattern of deception.
Thank you for your time and attention.
So, as you can see, you have nothing to worry about and you should take the actions I have suggested above.