Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello everyone and thanks again b789 for your help, just a quick update on the actions suggested here that I have taken over the last few days.

I have sent the complaint to the DVLA - their server kept throwing up an error when I tried to load the pdf so I merely copied the statement you kindly provided into the text box below the summary as there is enough room.  I have had the automatic response from DVLA saying it's been received.

I emailed the response to the LoC to info@moorsidelegal.co.uk, copying in Saba and myself.  I put a delivery and read receipt on the email.
The email was delivered to myself and Saba. I received both the delivery receipt and Saba's own automatic response template.

I got an outlook delivery failure for Moorside Legal, though:  "Your message couldn't be delivered because the recipient's email server (outside Office 365) suspected that your message was spam."
I tried again using help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and got the same response which was confusingly followed by an automatic response to say that the email had been received and a read receipt from outlook.  At least I know it got to the company, even if it wasn't the info address.  I will assume whoever manages the help inbox will forward it to the correct department.

I have written to my MP via email using the templates provided in this thread and received an automatic response that it had been received.

Now we just wait for someone to reply, I suppose.

Thanks again, b789, for your template letters and briefings.  I can't believe you all do this for free and I am very grateful.

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]

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:


You’ll need to clearly explain:


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.

As above. You can safely ignore debt collectors. However, I do advise that you respond to Moorside's letter, report them to the SRA and make a complaint to the police about this attempt to defraud you.

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:


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:


You can also call 101, but when you do, say:


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]

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 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]

Thanks HC Anderson - other than the response to the letter of claim I've not corresponded with Moorside legal. 

I have only followed B789's advice about complaining to various bodies like the DVLA or my MP etc, for which I am very grateful, but I'm happy to leave it at this if pursuing this line is considered to be further engaging with the scammers or if this sort of advice is keeping both of you from helping those who have more pressing cases.  Do let me know.

Thanks!