It would be laughable if it were not such a serious matter:
Owner of Vehicle
A Penalty Notice to the Registered Owner is issued under the assumption that the registered keeper is the owner. If you wish to provide evidence confirming that you are not the owner of the vehicle, you should supply this to the contact details below so that the case can be reviewed further and changes to liability can be made.
Where is this "Registered Owner" directory kept? How is it accessed? How can a mere "assumption" be used to prove ownership, especially if this is a criminal matter, which if it really was, can only be addressed through statutory enforcement mechanisms and would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt!
You now send a formal complaint to the BPA:
Your Name
Your Address
Your Email
[Date]
British Parking Association (BPA) Compliance Department
Chelsea House, 8-14 The Broadway
Haywards Heath
West Sussex, RH16 3AH
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding SABA’s Unlawful Issuance of Penalty Notices and BPA Complicity
Complaint reference number: [SABA/BPA complaint reference number]
Dear BPA Compliance Team,
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against SABA, a BPA member, regarding its unlawful issuance of Penalty Notices (PNs) that mislead motorists into believing they are statutory penalties under Railway Byelaw 14. However, these notices do not adhere to statutory enforcement procedures and are not processed through the Magistrates’ Court as required by law. Instead, SABA demands payment directly to themselves, raising serious concerns about misrepresentation, regulatory breaches, and potential fraudulent financial practices.
Furthermore, I wish to highlight the BPA’s complicity in this matter by allowing its members to issue Penalty Notices despite their lack of statutory authority. This is evident in:
-
Section 3.1.3 Note 2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which appears to endorse the use of Penalty Notices.
- The contradiction between the BPA’s stance and the
Department for Transport’s (DfT) 2018 guidance issued to POPLA, which suggested that parking-related breaches of the byelaws should not be pursued via statutory enforcement mechanisms such as criminal prosecution under Byelaw 24(1), but rather that breaches of Byelaw 14 should be dealt with through a civil contractual mechanism through the issue of PCNs.
- The ambiguous use of the term "penalty" has led to a deliberate misinterpretation of the DfT’s position, blurring the distinction between criminal enforcement and civil contract law. The DfT guidance to POPLA on handling breaches of Railway Byelaw 14 uses the term "penalty" inconsistently, contributing to confusion.
Byelaw 14 is technically a criminal offence, but the DfT guidance suggests that minor parking breaches should not be pursued as criminal matters via a Penalty Notice (PN). Instead, they should be treated as civil contractual breaches, enforceable through a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). However, the DfT refers to a PCN as a "penalty," which is misleading. In contract law, a charge for breaching terms and conditions is not a penalty in the legal sense—it is simply a charge. A "penalty" implies a punitive sanction, which is not legally enforceable in a civil claim.
The Road Traffic Act 1991 decriminalised parking offences on land under statutory control, meaning that private parking operators or Train Operating Companies (TOCs) cannot unilaterally enforce criminal penalties for minor parking breaches. If they were permitted to do so, it would grant them prosecutorial powers they do not lawfully possess.
Thus, the DfT’s language is problematic because it conflates a criminal penalty (which must be prosecuted in a magistrates' court) with a contractual parking charge (which can only be enforced through civil means). If the DfT fails to maintain this distinction, it effectively grants private entities powers to impose criminal sanctions, contrary to the principle of decriminalisation under the Road Traffic Act 1991.
- There is expert advice available that shows how the DfT’s reasoning has been mendaciously misinterpreted. In simple terms, the DfT does not expect minor parking offences to be prosecuted as criminal offences under Byelaw 24(1), which is reserved for more serious violations such as trespass and fare evasion. This is likely because parking offences on land that is under statutory control were decriminalised with the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
1. Misrepresentation of Authority & Unlawful Issuance of Penalty Notices
Owner of Vehicle
SABA has stated in its response to a formal complaint that a Penalty Notice is issued to the "Registered Owner" under the assumption that the registered keeper is the owner. However, this raises significant legal concerns:
Where is this "Registered Owner" directory kept? How is it accessed, and who maintains it? How can a mere "assumption" be used to prove ownership, especially in a situation where SABA implies criminal liability?
If this were truly a criminal matter, as SABA’s language suggests, it could only be addressed through statutory enforcement mechanisms and would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, SABA relies on unverified assumptions rather than legal proof, further highlighting the misleading nature of its Penalty Notices.
SABA’s Penalty Notices are designed to resemble statutory fines, yet they lack lawful authority under the Railway Byelaws 2005. These notices falsely imply that failure to pay will lead to legal consequences when, in reality:
- Byelaw 14 does not confer enforcement powers to private entities such as SABA to issue and retain penalties for their own benefit.
- There is no statutory prosecution mechanism available to SABA, meaning its claim of legal enforcement is deceptive.
2. BPA’s Contradictory Position (PPSCoP vs. DfT Guidance)
While the BPA continues to allow private operators to issue Penalty Notices, this is in direct contradiction to the DfT’s guidance, which distinguishes between:
- Civil charges under Byelaw 14(4)(i), which may be issued contractually as Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), and
- Statutory Penalty Notices under Byelaw 24(1), which require prosecution through statutory enforcement mechanisms.
The BPA’s PPSCoP improperly conflates these distinct enforcement mechanisms, allowing private operators to exploit the term "penalty" to mislead motorists into believing they have breached statutory law. The DfT letter makes it clear that private parking companies do not have the authority to issue statutory Penalty Notices, making SABA’s practices deceptive and unlawful.
3. Improper Retention of Funds & Consumer Detriment
Any legitimate railway byelaw penalty should be payable to the public purse, not to a private company. SABA, however, instructs motorists to pay them directly, raising concerns that:
- These penalties are unlawfully retained for private gain.
- The financial arrangements are inconsistent with how genuine byelaw penalties are handled.
- Motorists are being coerced into paying under the false belief that failure to do so will result in criminal prosecution.
4. Requested Actions by the BPA
In light of these serious regulatory and legal concerns, I request that the BPA take the following actions:
1. Conduct a full investigation into SABA’s business practices regarding the issuance of Penalty Notices.
2. Issue immediate disciplinary action against SABA, including the potential suspension or revocation of BPA membership for violating the PPSCoP and misleading motorists.
3. Provide a formal statement clarifying the BPA’s position on the legality of private firms issuing statutory-like Penalty Notices threatening criminal prosecution under railway byelaws.
4. Amend the PPSCoP to explicitly prohibit BPA members from issuing Penalty Notices that falsely imply statutory enforcement powers.
5. Next Steps if BPA Fails to Act
If the BPA does not take immediate action, I will escalate this matter to:
- The Department for Transport (DfT), which has already clarified the legal limitations of private enforcement under Byelaw 14.
- Trading Standards for investigation into misleading commercial practices.
- The DVLA, requesting that access to keeper data be revoked for non-compliant parking operators.
- My Member of Parliament (MP), to highlight regulatory failings in the BPA’s oversight.
- Potential legal action to challenge these deceptive practices.
6. Formal Response Request & Deadline
I request a formal response within 14 days, detailing the specific actions the BPA intends to take. Should you require any additional information, please contact me at [Your Email].
I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Wow! SABA’s reply is deliberately evasive and fails to address any of the key points raised in the formal complaint. Instead, they are attempting to deflect responsibility to a third-party company, PayMyParkingCharge, which is not relevant to the issue at hand.
Key Failures in SABA’s Response
1. They have not confirmed whether this is a statutory Penalty Notice or a civil charge.
2. They have not justified their legal authority to issue a Penalty Notice in their own name.
3. They have not explained why payments go to a private account rather than the railway authority.
4. They have ignored the issue of Byelaw 24(1) prosecution powers (which they do not have).
5. They have failed to substantively engage with the complaint, breaching the BPA Code of Practice.
SABA is the entity that requested DVLA keeper details, so they cannot avoid responsibility by referring you to PayMyParkingCharge.
Since SABA has failed to properly respond, they are now in breach of the BPA Code of Practice and the KADOE Agreement. The next move is to escalate this complaint.
Respond to that sad excuse of a response with the following:
SABA Park Services Ltd
Customer Support Centre
PO Box 2466
Watford
WD18 1XH
[date]
Delivered by email to: customersupport.uk@sabagroup.com
Subject: Escalation of Formal Complaint – This Needs to Be Passed to a Competent Senior Manager
Dear Charlie or whoever reads this,
I refer to my formal complaint sent earlier today regarding the so-called "Penalty Notice" issued by SABA Park Services Ltd at Leighton Buzzard North & South car parks. Your response does not engage with the very serious legal concerns raised, nor does it suggest that anyone with even a basic understanding of regulatory compliance has reviewed my complaint before sending such an inadequate reply.
Since you appear unwilling or unable to answer straightforward legal questions, I strongly recommend that you pass this matter to a senior manager, ideally someone with at least a basic understanding of contract law, statutory enforcement, and BPA Code of Practice compliance. If no such person exists at SABA, you should escalate this to your legal department or whoever is responsible for ensuring that SABA does not issue misleading demands for payment in a way that could result in serious regulatory repercussions.
To put this in very simple terms: I am not asking you to forward me to PayMyParkingCharge. SABA is the entity that obtained my DVLA data and issued this notice, so SABA is responsible for explaining its legal basis. If SABA is unable to do so, that raises an even bigger concern about whether SABA is misusing DVLA keeper data in breach of the KADOE Agreement, which could result in SABA being reported to the DVLA and having its access to keeper data revoked.
Now, let’s break this down in a way that should be easy to follow:
1. You have issued a notice that claims to be a statutory "Penalty Notice." If it is truly a statutory penalty, then certain legal requirements apply. If it is not a statutory penalty, then calling it one is misleading. You need to confirm which it is.
2. Only a Train Operating Company (TOC) can prosecute under Railway Byelaw 24(1). Since SABA is not a TOC, it has no power to enforce this notice in the Magistrates’ Court. Your notice falsely suggests otherwise. You need to explain why.
3. Payments for statutory penalties must go to the public purse or railway authority, not to a private company. If this is a statutory penalty, why is the payment going to SABA? If it is not a statutory penalty, then you should not be calling it one. You need to justify this discrepancy.
4. The DVLA does not maintain a register of vehicle owners—only keepers. Since the V5C explicitly states that it is not proof of ownership, you cannot assume the registered keeper is the owner. If you are holding the registered keeper liable under Byelaw 14(4)(i), you must prove ownership, which you cannot do. You need to explain how you intend to prove liability.
5. Passing the complaint to a third-party company does not absolve SABA of responsibility. You issued the notice. You requested the DVLA data. You are accountable for explaining your legal position. Redirecting me elsewhere is not an answer.
This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If your current complaints team does not have the competence to respond properly, I expect this to be escalated immediately to someone within SABA who understands the legal ramifications of issuing misleading penalty notices under the guise of statutory enforcement.
Now, for the part that should get management’s attention. If I do not receive a full, legally sound response within 14 days, I will escalate this matter to:
• The British Parking Association (BPA), for a breach of the BPA Code of Practice.
• The DVLA, for a potential breach of the KADOE Agreement, which could lead to SABA losing access to keeper data.
• Trading Standards, for issuing misleading and possibly unlawful payment demands.
• The Department for Transport (DfT), for further investigation into the misuse of railway byelaws.
This is your final opportunity to respond in a way that does not result in formal regulatory complaints. I strongly advise that someone with an actual understanding of these issues reviews my complaint before SABA takes an action it may regret.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Email]
Here is why you are being conned:
Summary of SABA’s "Penalty Notice" and Its Legal Flaws
1. The Nature of SABA’s "Penalty Notice"
SABA Park Services has issued a "Penalty Notice by Post – Notice to Owner", citing Railway Byelaw 14(4)(i) as the basis for a financial demand. The notice threatens criminal prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court or recovery via civil proceedings if the recipient does not pay. However, this notice is misleading, legally flawed, and unenforceable, as it misrepresents the nature of penalties under railway byelaws.
2. Why This Is Not a Genuine "Penalty Notice"
A genuine Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws must:
• Be issued by a statutory authority (such as a Train Operating Company or public body).
• Be enforceable through criminal prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court under Byelaw 24(1).
• Result in fines payable to the public purse, not to a private company.
SABA’s notice fails on all these points, as it is issued by a private parking company with no statutory authority and directs payments to its own bank account.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has clarified that Byelaw 14(4)(i) does not create a statutory criminal penalty but instead allows operators to issue civil parking charges. While parking operators may issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) as contractual charges, only a Train Operating Company (TOC) or government authority can prosecute a criminal offence under Byelaw 24(1).
Thus, SABA has no legal power to issue a statutory Penalty Notice or pursue criminal enforcement.
3. SABA’s Unlawful Actions and Misleading Wording
SABA’s notice contains multiple false or misleading claims, including:
(a) False Threat of Criminal Prosecution
• The notice implies that failure to pay may result in a "private criminal prosecution".
• However, SABA cannot prosecute under railway byelaws—only the TOC can.
• Prosecutions under Byelaw 24(1) require explicit statutory authority, which SABA does not have.
• Threatening criminal action when none can lawfully occur is misleading and unlawful.
(b) Unlawful Use of the Term "Penalty Notice"
• The term "Penalty Notice" is legally reserved for statutory fines issued by public bodies.
• Private companies cannot issue Penalty Notices under railway byelaws.
• By calling this demand a "Penalty Notice", SABA falsely implies a criminal enforcement power it does not possess.
(c) Misrepresentation of Keeper Liability
• The notice is sent to the registered keeper, suggesting the keeper is liable for the charge.
• However, Railway Byelaws do not create automatic keeper liability, and PoFA 2012 does not apply on railway land.
• Unless SABA can prove who was driving, the notice is unenforceable.
(d) Incorrect Reliance on Byelaw 14(4)(i)
• Byelaw 14(4)(i) states that the owner of a vehicle parked in contravention of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) "may be liable to pay a penalty".
• However, the UK has no official register of vehicle owners, only registered keepers.
• The V5C logbook explicitly states: "THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP."
• Without proof of ownership, SABA cannot enforce a charge under Byelaw 14(4)(i).
• If prosecuted, the burden of proof would have to be beyond a reasonable doubt—something SABA cannot meet.
4. Why Railway Penalty Notices Can ONLY Be Addressed Through Statutory Enforcement
A true Penalty Notice for a railway byelaw breach must:
1. Be issued by a statutory authority
• Only a Train Operating Company (TOC) or government agency can issue a genuine Penalty Notice.
• Private parking operators lack statutory authority to issue Penalty Notices.
2. Be prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court
• Genuine railway byelaw breaches are prosecuted under Byelaw 24(1) in a criminal court.
• Private companies cannot bring criminal prosecutions.
3. Be paid to the public purse
• If this were a true statutory penalty, payment would go to a railway authority or government body.
• SABA directs payments to its own private bank account, proving this is a private commercial demand, not a statutory fine.
4. Follow criminal procedure, not civil enforcement
• A statutory Penalty Notice must be challenged through the judicial system.
• SABA offers a private appeals process, confirming that this is not a statutory enforcement action.
Since SABA lacks statutory authority, its notice is legally invalid.
5. The Department for Transport (DfT) Has Already Discredited This Approach
The DfT has explicitly clarified that enforcement under Byelaw 14(4)(i) is distinct from Byelaw 24(1) in a letter to POPLA in 2018.
“The ability to render a charge under Byelaw 14(4)(i) is distinct from the general enforcement power in Byelaw 24(1), under which a person can be prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court.”
This confirms that:
• Byelaw 14(4)(i) does not create a criminal offence.
• Parking contraventions should not be prosecuted under Byelaw 24(1).
• Operators can issue contractual PCNs but cannot enforce statutory Penalty Notices.
The DfT recognises that minor parking contraventions should be handled via civil enforcement, rather than criminal prosecution under Byelaw 24(1). The Road Traffic Act 1991 decriminalised most non-endorsable parking offences in the UK. This means that parking offences are now civil matters, not criminal ones.
SABA’s attempt to blur the lines between civil and criminal liability is misleading and unlawful.
6. Conclusion: SABA’s "Penalty Notice" Is Unenforceable
SABA’s notice is not a genuine Penalty Notice—it is a misleading private demand for money that misrepresents the law. It is unlawful because:
• SABA lacks the statutory authority to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaws.
• Only Train Operating Companies (TOCs) can prosecute Byelaw breaches in a Magistrates’ Court.
• Payments for statutory penalties must go to the public purse—not to a private company’s bank account.
• The notice falsely implies criminal liability, when none exists without statutory prosecution.
• Byelaw 14(4)(i) does not establish automatic liability for the registered keeper.
• The DfT has confirmed that minor parking contraventions should be dealt with through civil means, not prosecution.
So, what should you do as the recipient of this fake Penalty Notice?
Do not identify the driver, do not appeal it and definitely do not pay it. A formal complaint should be sent to SABA.
Since SABA must follow the BPA’s rules, a complaint forces them into a difficult position:
• If they fail to respond, they breach the PPSCoP, giving grounds for an official BPA complaint.
• If they respond dishonestly, they provide written evidence of misrepresentation, strengthening a case for DVLA intervention.
• If they attempt to justify their Penalty Notice, they expose their legal position, which can be dismantled.
This approach is not about engaging with SABA in good faith—it is about forcing them to put their misleading actions on record and creating a paper trail for escalation.
These are the key objectives by formally complaining:
1. Challenge SABA’s legal authority to issue a "Penalty Notice."
2. Force them to clarify/declare whether this is a civil charge or a statutory penalty.
3. Make them explain why they are demanding payment into a private account.
4. Demand a response under the PPSCoP, highlighting that failure to engage will lead to a formal complaint to the BPA and DVLA.
Here is the suggested formal complaint you should send as a PDF document attached to an email to customersupport.uk@sabagroup.com and also CC in yourself:
SABA Park Services Ltd
Customer Support Centre
PO Box 2466
Watford
WD18 1XH
[date]
Delivered by email to: customersupport.uk@sabagroup.com
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Misrepresentation of "Penalty Notice" [penalty notice number]
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding the "Penalty Notice by Post – Notice to Owner" issued by SABA Park Services Ltd, which purports to be a statutory railway Penalty Notice under Byelaw 14. This notice is misleading and appears to be an unlawful demand for payment.
As a British Parking Association (BPA) member, SABA is subject to the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires all BPA members to:
• Operate in a transparent, fair, and legally compliant manner.
• Respond to formal complaints in a timely and substantive manner.
• Ensure that all correspondence, including parking charge demands, is clear, accurate, and not misleading.
Key Issues Requiring Clarification
1. Basis of Authority for Issuing a "Penalty Notice"
• Please confirm whether this is a statutory Penalty Notice issued under railway byelaws or a civil parking charge.
• Under what statutory or contractual authority does SABA have the power to issue a "Penalty Notice" in its own name?
• If this is a statutory Penalty Notice, why does it not conform to standard public penalty notice formats, such as those issued by local authorities?
2. SABA’s Lack of Prosecution Powers Under Byelaw 24(1)
• The Department for Transport (DfT) has confirmed that only a Train Operating Company (TOC) can prosecute Byelaw offences under Byelaw 24(1).
• Since SABA is not a TOC, it has no authority to prosecute Byelaw offences.
• Why does SABA’s notice falsely suggest that failure to pay may lead to prosecution when SABA has no power to prosecute?
3. Financial Destination of Payment – Private Bank Account
• Statutory railway Penalty Notices must be paid into the public purse or railway authority accounts.
• Why is SABA demanding payment into its own private account if this is a statutory penalty?
4. Misrepresentation of Keeper Liability Under Byelaw 14(4)(i)
• The V5C vehicle registration document states that it is NOT proof of ownership.
• The DVLA does not maintain a vehicle ownership register—only a register of keepers.
• On what legal basis does SABA presume that the registered keeper is the owner, given that no such legal presumption exists?
5. Breach of BPA Code of Practice and KADOE Agreement
• The PPSCoP requires that all enforcement activity is fair, transparent, and compliant with consumer law.
• The KADOE Agreement prohibits the misuse of DVLA data for misleading or unlawful enforcement activity.
• If SABA fails to substantively respond to this complaint within 28 days, I will escalate this matter as a formal complaint to the BPA and DVLA.
Requested Action
1. Confirm whether this is a statutory Penalty Notice or a civil parking charge.
2. Explain why SABA is implying it has powers of criminal prosecution when only TOCs can prosecute under Byelaw 24(1).
3. Provide the legal basis for demanding payment into a private account rather than a railway or public fund.
4. Confirm why SABA is assuming the registered keeper is the vehicle owner when no such legal presumption exists.
5. Respond within 28 days as required under the PPSCoP.
Failure to respond within this timeframe will result in a formal complaint being escalated, but not limited to, the BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards, and the Department for Transport (DfT) for potential breaches of:
• The PPSCoP (BPA).
• The KADOE Agreement (DVLA).
• The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (for misleading demands).
I expect a substantive response addressing all the above points. A failure to engage will be taken as an admission that the Penalty Notice is unenforceable and misleading.
Yours sincerely,
[Recipient’s Name]
[Recipient’s Address]
[Contact Email]