Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

Hope someone can help (and apologies if I have posted this to the wrong forum - I think the carpark is owned by West Midland Trains so not sure if that's like TfL).

Upon entering the car park, the driver found a space, parked up, and paid for parking on the app. Unfortunately, the app defaulted to the wrong vehicle registration and the driver paid the parking but for the wrong vehicle. Today (18th Feb 2025), the registered keeper, received a penalty notice by post - copy attached.

The notice is from Saba, though it does mention another company, ZZPS.

The driver tried to lodge an appeal, but they require the Parking Charge Number and the VRM - is the Parking Charge Number = Penalty Notice Number?

The keeper would like to know if there is any point of trying to fight the ticket, any chance of winning a dispute and not wasting time?

Many thanks.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Penalty Notices (PNs) issued by SABA are not real. They are fake Penalty Notices. They try to conflate civil contract law with statute criminal law which is unlawful.

However, for now, please show us the Penalty Notice you received, both sides. Only redact your personal info, the PN number and your VRM. Once we have been able to check it, we can advise on the next steps.

No one receiving our advice and following it pays a penny to SABA.

READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

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:


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:


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


2. Be prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court


3. Be paid to the public purse


4. Follow criminal procedure, not civil enforcement


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.


This confirms that:


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:


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:


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:


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]

It’s not just SABA, they’re all at it, it’s simply because many people are intimidated by their letters and pay up at once. Good for you that you’re not one of them.

Thanks. I sent the PDF as advised, and have received this response - I'm a little confused as it seems they are now saying it's not Saba who's issued the penalty notice (despite it appearing to be sent by Saba) but this new company, PayMyParkingCharge:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for getting in touch and I’m sorry to hear that you’ve received Penalty Notice XXXXXXX and advise you wish to raise concerns over the legitimacy of the notice issued.

I can confirm that Saba manages the car park at Leighton Buzzard North & South on behalf of the landowner, West Midlands Trains. It is important to note that this car park is subject to railway byelaws. There is clear and visible signage located at the entrance to the car park. This signage provides all users with detailed information regarding the terms and conditions of parking. Additionally, the signage outlines the potential consequences of failing to adhere to these terms, which may include Penalty Notices being issued.

As ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) Notices are issued and managed by PayMyParkingCharge, a member of their team would be best positioned to assist you with your concerns as well as providing you with the options moving forward.

You can email the team on customerservices@PayMyParkingCharge.com
If you are wanting to speak to an agent, you can also call their team on 01932 918098 (Mon to Fri -8.30am to 5.30pm).

Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch and making us aware of your concerns.

Kind Regards
Charlie

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


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]

PayMyParkingCharge is ZZPS, who you’ve already encountered.

Debt collectors. For whom the advice is ….. ignore.

Apologies. Just curious, why would this be issued to debt collectors? This is the first notice we have received and it only happened 2 weeks ago (the notice was received on Monday 17/2).

It hasn't... yet.

However, it says the penalty notice says that you can only appeal through paymyparkingcharge.com, which is owned by ZZPS, a useless debt collector. Here is a bit of an explanation:

Why is the appeal process only available through ZZPS, a debt collector, when the Penalty Notice (PN) was issued by SABA?

This is part of a deliberate setup designed to distance SABA from the entire enforcement process while still profiting from it. Although the Penalty Notice (PN) was issued by SABA, the only appeal route provided is through paymyparkingcharge.com, a website owned and operated by ZZPS Limited, which is a debt collection agency.

This setup raises serious concerns:

• SABA is trying to avoid direct involvement in the appeals process. Instead of handling appeals themselves, they force recipients to use a system controlled by a debt collector. This allows them to claim they are not involved in rejecting appeals while ensuring appeals are guaranteed to fail.

• ZZPS is not independent. They are a debt collection agency with a financial interest in ensuring the penalty is paid, making the so-called “appeal” process nothing more than a formality before they escalate the case.

• The scam element: SABA issues a fake “Penalty Notice” (which has no legal standing) to make it appear like an official fine, but instead of reviewing appeals fairly, they rely on ZZPS to reject them and then harass the recipient for payment.

• The next step will be ZZPS chasing the Keeper for payment. If the appeal is rejected (which it certainly will be), the case will be automatically passed to ZZPS for “debt collection,” even though they were already involved from the start.

This entire process is designed to intimidate recipients into paying by making it seem like they are dealing with different entities at different stages—when in reality, it’s just SABA and ZZPS working together to extract payment.

Key takeaway: The so-called “appeal” is a sham, designed to funnel cases straight into ZZPS’s debt collection system. This is the reason you are challenging the legitimacy of the PN through a formal complaints process rather than expecting any fair treatment from ZZPS in a sham appeal set-up.