Leighton Buzzard Train Staion Car Park - parking paid on app but wrong car selected

• #15 Reply
  Posted by b789 on 19 Feb, 2025 20:11
• Oh, I forgot to mention that ZZPS is owned by one bottom-dwelling, Gary Osner, a board member of the BPA. Talk about conflicts of interest.
  
  Here is a bit of "history" about Osner and GCTT, which is another trading name for ZZPS:
  
  

  Quote

  GCTT is not a certificated enforcement agent, but Gary Osner's ZZPS Ltd is. Gary Osner is also a Director of The BPA.
  
  So we have Gary Osner operating under GCTT, and fraudulently claiming that GCTT is a certificated enforcement agent, when it clearly is not. To register himself as an agent for GCTT it looks like he needs to pay a further £10,000 to the same London court he already uses, and register with a new form stating he is operating under GCTT as well as ZZPS Ltd using form EAC1
  
  The registration process for an enforcement agent is very clear and the company name for GCTT must match the company name which G.Osner used when achieving accreditation, but Osner has used only ZZPS Ltd
  
  GCTT is also not a limited company, which means there is no limit to it's liabilities.
  
  I think there is fraud or at least misrepresentation to be considered here.
  
  The list of the ONLY authourised enforcement agents in the UK is available here https://certificatedbailiffs.justice.gov.uk
  
  Form EAC1, application to be an enforcement officer, has a specific requirement  which is that Osner must list any company which he wishes the licence to cover. He has not done this, or presumably it would be noted in the list of registered certificed enforcement officers...EAC1
  
  I haven't spent much time looking more deeply into GCTT, but it is not a registered company with Companies House (only ZZPS Ltd is), nor does GCTT have an enforcement agent certificate.
• 
  
• #16 Reply
  Posted by amper on 20 Feb, 2025 10:49
• What I will say is Saba are prompt in replying. Following, is their response (I've copied and pasted it below), and they have stated this is their final response:
  
  Dear XXXXXXXXXXX,
  
  Re: Escalation of Formal Complaint — Penalty Notice: WMTXXXXXXX
  
  Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above-mentioned Penalty Notice, and I apologise if our response was not satisfactory. We will address each of the concerns you have raised and provide further context to your queries.
  
  Penalty Notice
  Issued under Railway Byelaw 14, Parking Operators (namely Saba) are able to issue Penalty Notices on behalf of a Train Operating Company (TOC). The above-referenced Penalty Notice was issued as the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera observed your vehicle being parked in the Leighton Buzzard Station North/South Station Car Park without having obtained a valid ticket or cashless parking session. This breaches the terms and conditions of parking as motorists are required to obtain a valid ticket or cashless parking session by using either the Saba Parking App/Website, the Trust Parking App, or the on-site payment machine. Motorists using the car park can make a payment either in advance, upon arrival, or up until midnight on the day of arriving at the car park.
  
  In this case, the car park is owned by West Midlands Railway, a Train Operating Company (TOC), and Saba has a contractual agreement to issue Penalty Notices on their behalf. This is identifiable by the WMT prefix on the Penalty Notice. Equally, signage in the car park confirms Saba's authority and the TOC's agreement for Saba to actively enforce.
  
  Your points regarding Parking Operators using the term ‘Penalty’ when issuing notices on private, non-railway land is prohibited. However, we can confirm that the land is owned by a TOC, and therefore under Railway Byelaw.
  
  Given that the Penalty Notice was issued for a breach on railway land, we are satisfied that using the term Penalty Notice does not constitute a breach of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice.
  
  Payments for Penalty Notice
  Payments for Penalty Notices are managed by Saba on behalf of the TOC. This includes any additional enforcement costs which may be associated with debt recovery or legal action. However, Saba is under no obligation to disclose commercially sensitive information relating to the management of funds.
  
  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.
  
  Department for Transport (DfT)
  In June 2018, the Department for Transport (DfT) confirmed that Parking Operators have a remit to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaw 14.
  To ensure good practice, the DfT also confirmed that motorists issued with a Penalty Notice should be provided with an opportunity to appeal to an independent body. Saba supports this and allows motorists the opportunity to make an independent appeal to the Appeals Service. However, this is only available if a first-stage appeal to Saba is made and is unsuccessful. The decisions made by the Appeals Service is binding to Saba. This means that if they determine a case has been mishandled, then they can instruct Saba to cease enforcement with no further action.
  
  Appeal
  The appeals process for your particular case is outlined on the back of the Penalty Notice to Owner which you have received. We would therefore urge you to follow this process and explain any concerns that you may have so that the case can be reviewed and an outcome provided to you. Appealing a Penalty Notice comes at no cost to the motorist but does place the case on hold so that it can be reviewed without further cost being incurred. To ensure clarity, if you do wisht to appeal then please visit: https://paymyparkingcharge.com and enter your Penalty Notice reference number and your vehicle registration. This will also allow you to review any evidence Saba has gathered prior to issuing the Penalty Notice.
  
  Further Information
  To ensure transparency, I would like to inform you that the Penalty Notice was issued under Railway Byelaw, and that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) was not used nor quoted in any correspondence to yourself. POFA applies to cases which are issued on private land and not Railway Land.
  
  Contact
  If you wish to contact the team handling your case, please use the following details:
  
  Telephone: 01932 918 098
  Email: customerservices@paymyparkingcharge.com
  Website: https://paymyparkingcharge.com
  
  To conclude, we have reviewed your case thoroughly and can confirm that it is our standpoint that the Penalty Notice was issued correctly under both Railway Byelaw and requirements from the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. We would therefore be unable to take any further action relating to your complaint.
  
  In line with the Code of Practice, if you are wishing to escalate a complaint then please visit the British Parking Association's website and quote reference code XXXXXXXXXX so that your concerns can be reviewed independently from Saba.
  
  Thank you again for taking the time to raise your concerns to us and I apologise that we were unable to resolve your complaint.
  
  Kind Regards,
  Customer Relations Team
  Saba UK
• 
  
• #17 Reply
  Posted by jfollows on 20 Feb, 2025 11:08
• There’s no such thing as a “registered owner” but it seems to suit SABA to invent one. Pretending that the registered keeper is the owner enables them to leap to invalid conclusions.
• 
  
• #18 Reply
  Posted by b789 on 20 Feb, 2025 15:24
• It would be laughable if it were not such a serious matter:
  
  

  Quote

  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:
  
  

  Quote

  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]
•