Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have received a penalty notice from Saba Parking which said I arrived in the car park at 7.45am and overstayed the 20 minute time limit.  I appealed and asked for photographic evidence that I arrived at this time and I was sent a photo of my car at 8.22am.  I asked again for evidence of arrival time and the appeal got sent to the railway compamy who's land it was.  I sent my appeal through to them as I know I didn't arrive at 7.45am, but their response was "We are sure our operator followed the correct procedure so the penalty still stands"
Please can anyone help as they have now closed my appeal and said I have to pay it even though I wasn't there at the tie on the ticket and there is no evidence that I was.

Please show us this "Penalty Notice" issued by SABA. You are asking for advice without providing enough evidence for us to help you.

I know for a fact that a SABA issued Penalty Notice (PN) is nothing of the sort. It is a fake PN. It is in fact an "offered contract" which is not legally binding on anyone. The contract offers the recipient the chance to "bribe" SABA to the tune of £100 (or whatever amount is in the notice) for them not to initiate a private criminal prosecution in the magistrates court.

However, you have already been duped as have hundreds of thousands of other low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into engaging with them in this extortion. You mention that "...the appeal got sent to the railway compamy whose land it was.". Please elaborate on that.

SABA themselves have never ever initiated a private criminal prosecution in the magistrate's court themselves. They don't have an ounce of altruism in their being because any prosecution that is successful means that the penalty paid goes to the public purse, not the greedy ex-clampers one bank account.

So, if you'd like advice on how to fight this scam, please answer the questions above and show us the PN you received, what you have already said in your appeals and the responses you received.

You've left all of your personal information visible in the various attachments - you may wish to redact these.

Please show us the back of the Notice to Driver (NtD) that was affixed to the vehicle.

I was discussing this matter with a district judge last night and he is as outraged by the audacity of these fake Penalty Notices. Saba are attempting to conflate civil law and statutory law.

The notice is nothing more than an offer to the recipient which is not enforceable. Real Penalty Notices cannot be dealt with by the civil courts, only as criminal matters in the magistrates court.

Civil matters only require the burden of proof to be on the “balance of probabilities”. Criminal matters require the burden of proof to be “beyond all reasonable doubt”. Even if this were a real PN (it definitely isn’t), the prosecution would have to prove that the crime was committed by the defendant.

Their reliance on bylaw 14.4 is impossible to prove. Never mind the fact that they have not stated which subsection of bylaw 14 has allegedly been breached, they state that they can hold the “owner” of the vehicle liable for the crime. There is no register of “owners”. Being the Registered Keeper (RK) is not proof of ownership and if you look at your V5C, it states so very clearly on the front of it that it is not proof of ownership.

So, SABA cannot try and sue you for the alleged debt as a civil matter because it is not a civil matter and they are pretending that they have a right to bring a private criminal prosecution in the magistrates court as a matter of statutory law. Were they to do that, the burden of proof goes through the roof and even if they were successful, not a penny of any penalty or fine would go to them. It all goes to the public purse.

I would bet that if Saba were forced to evidence their contract with the Train Operating Company (TOC), they have no right to issue “Penalty Notices” but are expected to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) under civil contract law. However, they choose not to because they know they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable as the location is not relevant land.

Please show us the back of the Penalty Notice you received as I need it as further evidence of this unlawful extortion racket.

Continue to ignore everything that is sent to you except a Letter of Claim (LoC) or a summons from the magistrates court. They have 6 months from the date of the alleged offence to initiate legal action. They won’t.

They are simply hoping you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that will pay up out of ignorance and fear. You are only one of hundreds of thousands of victims of this scam/extortion racket (call it what you will). Unfortunately, unless they’ve been here or over on MSE, they have no idea and end up paying needlessly into the scam. You have already fallen victim by having appealed, needlessly and uselessly.

My advice is to send the following letter to SABA and see what their response is. Send the letter as a PDF attachment in an email to customersupport.uk@sabagroup.com and also CC in yourself.

SABA Customer Support Centre
PO Box 2466
Watford
Hertfordshire
WD18 1XH

By email to: customersupport.uk@sabagroup.com

Subject: Formal Challenge Regarding the Legitimacy of Penalty Notice [Reference Number: WMT42420241121080936]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the legitimacy and enforceability of the above-referenced Penalty Notice (PN) issued by SABA Parking UK on behalf of West Midlands Trains. Based on my understanding of the Railway Byelaws 2005, the 2018 Department for Transport (DfT) response to POPLA, and the decriminalisation of parking offences under the Road Traffic Act 1991, it is clear that your PN is not a lawful Penalty Notice. I contend that this notice is a deliberate misrepresentation of your authority under the byelaws and amounts to an attempt to extort money from motorists into your own company bank account.

1. Misrepresentation of Legal Authority

The PN issued to me purports to be a statutory penalty under the Railway Byelaws 2005, specifically byelaw 14. However, I am fully aware that parking offences were decriminalised under the Road Traffic Act 1991, meaning that minor parking breaches should no longer be treated as criminal offences. Instead, they should be dealt with through civil contract law mechanisms, such as a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), rather than a Penalty Notice (PN) implying statutory authority and criminal liability.

The 2018 DfT response to POPLA further supports this interpretation. The query from POPLA was about their ability to provide an independent appeals service for penalty notices issued at railway station car parks. It is evident that POPLA, as a non-statutory body, cannot adjudicate on criminal matters such as penalty notices issued under the Railway Byelaws. POPLA could, however, adjudicate if the matter were treated as a civil contractual issue, such as a PCN. This distinction highlights that penalty notices issued under the byelaws are inherently criminal in nature and must be dealt with through the appropriate statutory processes.

Your attempt to issue a PN under the guise of enforcing a statutory penalty is a fundamental misapplication of the byelaws. If the alleged contravention is truly a minor parking issue, as stated, it should be managed through civil contract law, not through threats of criminal prosecution.

2. Unlawful Retention of Penalty Payments

Statutory penalties issued under byelaw 14 are intended to be paid into the public purse, not retained by private companies. The payment instructions provided on your PN direct funds to SABA’s bank account, raising serious concerns about the legitimacy of your enforcement practices. There is no lawful basis for SABA to retain funds collected from alleged breaches of railway byelaws. If this were a genuine Penalty Notice under statutory authority, any payments collected would need to be remitted to the Train Operating Company or the public purse.

Your current practice of directing payments to your own bank account is indicative of a private revenue collection scheme masquerading as statutory enforcement. This misrepresentation is misleading to motorists and constitutes a breach of consumer protection laws.

3. Procedural Flaws in the Use of "Appeals Service"

I note that my appeal to your so-called "Appeals Service" was rejected. This further highlights the flawed and unlawful nature of your process. The Appeals Service, like POPLA, is not a statutory body. It is a third-party, private entity funded by SABA, creating a clear conflict of interest and undermining any claim of impartiality.

If SABA were acting in accordance with the Railway Byelaws, the appropriate recourse would be to refer the matter to the magistrates' court for prosecution. However, as previously stated, minor parking offences should not be subject to criminal prosecution. The use of a privately funded appeals service demonstrates that SABA has no intention of following either the statutory process or the appropriate civil process.

4. Understanding of the Legal Process and the DfT’s Position

I am fully aware that if SABA wishes to pursue this matter as a genuine penalty under the Railway Byelaws, the correct procedure is to lay information before a magistrates' court for a private criminal prosecution. If the information is deemed valid, a summons would be issued for me to attend court. I also understand that the burden of proof in the magistrates' court is much higher than in a civil court. The prosecution must prove the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a significantly higher standard than the balance of probabilities used in civil cases.

However, it is clear from the DfT’s 2018 response that parking offences under byelaw 14(4)(i) are not intended to be dealt with through byelaw 24(1) criminal prosecutions. Instead, these minor infractions should be handled through civil contract law mechanisms, such as issuing a PCN, rather than a PN. Your failure to follow the appropriate civil enforcement process suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead motorists into believing they are liable for a criminal penalty.

5. Abuse of Process and Potential Extortion

Given the above, I believe that your actions amount to an abuse of process and potentially constitute an attempt to extort money from motorists under the guise of statutory enforcement. Your PN is not a genuine Penalty Notice under the Railway Byelaws, and your procedures indicate a deliberate effort to mislead motorists into making payments that are not legally owed.

Furthermore, the threat of additional costs and enforcement action if payment is not made reinforces the impression that SABA is attempting to profit from this process without following the correct legal channels. These tactics amount to unfair commercial practices under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

6. Request for Clarification and Next Steps

I hereby request the following clarifications from SABA:

• Confirmation of the legal authority under which SABA collects payments directly into its own bank account for alleged breaches of railway byelaws.

• An explanation as to why the alleged breach has not been referred to the magistrates' court for prosecution, as required under the Railway Byelaws, if you believe it constitutes a criminal offence.

• Details of any contractual arrangements between SABA and West Midlands Trains regarding the right to issue Penalty Notices and collection and retention of penalty payments.

• Clarification of the role and funding of the Appeals Service, and an explanation of why this body is used instead of a court process or an independent, statutory appeals body.

7. Conclusion

In light of the issues outlined above, I do not recognise this Penalty Notice as valid or enforceable. I will not be making any payment to SABA. Should SABA wish to pursue this matter further, it must be done through the appropriate legal channels by following either the correct statutory prosecution process or, more appropriately, civil contract law procedures. If the latter route is pursued, the correct mechanism would be to issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) under civil law, rather than a Penalty Notice.

If SABA continues to pursue this matter without following the proper legal process, I will consider filing formal complaints with the British Parking Association, the DVLA, the Train Operating Company, the Office of Rail and Road, and Trading Standards. I will also consider reporting SABA’s practices to the relevant consumer protection authorities for investigation into potential breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

I look forward to your prompt response to this challenge.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]