Free Traffic Legal Advice

This is being moved to Private Parking.

What you received from SABA is a fake Penalty Notice. It is a fraudulent attempt to extort money from you. SABA have no authority to issue a Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws.

What they have issued is an "offered contract" under civil law and neither you nor anyone else for that matter is under any legal obligation to accept an "offered contract". The "contract" offers you the opportunity to pay a bribe to SABA for them to not prosecute you under Railway Byelaws. The simple fact is that they are unable to actually prosecute you under  Railway Byelaws because they are not an authority authorised to do so.

Your appeal is irrelevant. I can guarantee that apart from the useless debt collector letters which you must ignore and never try and communicate with them, they will eventually give up.

SABA cannot issue a claim in the county court for an alleged criminal matter. If they wanted to issue a charge in the magistrate's court under criminal law, they would need the authority to prosecute (which they don't have) under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP).

So, if you continue to engage with them, you are falling into their scam (fraud) and giving them oxygen to keep trying to extort money from you. You are considered by them as low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and ripe for the picking out of ignorance of the law and your rights.

I can say with 100% certainty that you will never be issued with a claim in the county court or summonsed for a criminal charge in the magistrates court over this fake Penalty Notice. Ignore them. They will eventually give up and go off in search of lower-hanging fruit.

You may want to consider reporting them to Action Fraud. They are using unlawful language in their "offered contract" to extort money from recipients who are under the misapprehension that they are liable to criminal proceedings when they aren't.

If you want to see what a real Penalty Notice is about and how we are dealing with it, have a read of this thread:

Byelaws offence - Taken to magistrates for private parking ticket

Just block their number.

Should you be worried? Absolutely not. I have already explained to you, this is not a legitimate Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and it is not a valid Penalty Notice (PN). It is neither. It is a deliberately fabricated hybrid, falsely presented to look like an official legal document in order to deceive. It is designed to mimic the appearance and tone of statutory enforcement, knowing full well that it carries no lawful authority whatsoever.

What makes this even more serious is that the company has now repackaged the expired and unlawful Penalty Notice as a civil debt—a move that is not only dishonest but legally impossible. A genuine Penalty Notice under the railway byelaws is a criminal matter, and must be prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court by a public body, within six months of the alleged offence. In this case, the alleged offence took place on 12th September 2024, meaning the six-month statutory limitation expired on 12th March 2025. That legal window has closed. The case is dead in law, and cannot be revived in any court, criminal or civil.

However, it is criminal act by SABA and their agents because there is an intention to deceive recipients into paying under the false belief that this is a criminal or statutory penalty. This aligns with the criminal offence of fraud by false representation (Fraud Act 2006, s.2) and possibly even blackmail (Theft Act 1968, s.21), particularly as there is an explicit threat of legal or financial consequences unless payment is made.

Their intention is clear: to frighten, confuse, and coerce people—ordinary members of the public—into handing over money under false pretences. That is not a civil dispute. It is a criminal act.

To pursue a demand in the civil courts for a penalty that is not lawfully due, and which has already timed out under criminal law, is not simply an abuse of process—it is a deliberate, calculated attempt to obtain money through deception and intimidation.

This is criminal conduct masquerading as legal procedure. It must be treated as such, and those involved—particularly regulated legal professionals like Moorside Legal—must be held fully accountable under both professional and criminal law.

This should not be reported through Action Fraud. Action Fraud is not a police force; it only collects data and passes cases to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), which investigates only a small fraction. It does not issue crime reference numbers in the way local police do, nor does it guarantee that a crime report will be properly recorded or pursued.

Where the suspect is known—as in this case (SABA, or their legal representatives such as Moorside Legal)—and the fraud is targeted, ongoing, and involves documented threats, the matter falls under the jurisdiction of your local police force, who are responsible for investigating under the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). This requires that a crime be recorded when the victim reports one, unless there is credible evidence to the contrary.

This is not a generic scam. It involves a deliberate and unlawful false representation by a known legal entity. A document falsely labelled as a Penalty Notice, with legalistic threats and a demand for payment, was issued without any statutory authority. Worse still, once the six-month legal deadline to prosecute expired, the company repackaged the void Penalty Notice as a civil debt and began issuing threats of litigation—despite knowing that no such liability exists. That is a textbook example of fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006, and potentially blackmail/extortion, due to the misuse of legal process and threats of financial harm.

This is a serious and ongoing criminal act, and must be treated as such.

To report to the police, attend or call your local police station (via 101) and request to report a crime. Do not accept redirection to Action Fraud. Ask for the matter to be recorded locally as fraud by false representation and attempted blackmail/extortion.

State that:


When speaking to the officer, you may wish to phrase it like this:


If the officer refuses or tries to redirect you to Action Fraud, politely but firmly cite the National Crime Recording Standard:


Fraud by a known suspect is a matter for local police, not Action Fraud.

There has been a systemic failure to treat these fake Penalty Notices as the criminal frauds they are. Calling it a “civil issue” or “waste of police time” ignores the fact that this is an intentional abuse of legal process to obtain money by deception. If this is not treated as a crime, then both consumer protection and the integrity of criminal law are being undermined.

Getting your MP involved can also be highly effective—especially if framed correctly. MPs can raise issues via Parliamentary Questions (PQs) or adjournment debates, forcing departments to respond. MPs can write directly to Ministers (e.g. the Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Justice, or Transport Minister) demanding a policy response. They can also refer specific cases to the National Crime Agency, Trading Standards, or Police and Crime Commissioners, giving them political weight.

Here's a draft MP briefing letter and accompanying briefing document you can use or adapt:

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Date]

[MP’s Name]
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear [MP’s Name],

Re: Urgent Action Required – Fraudulent Use of Expired Railway “Penalty Notice” and Misuse of Legal Process

I am writing to you as a constituent to raise a matter of serious concern involving the abuse of legal process by a private parking company operating on railway land. I recently received a document purporting to be a “Penalty Notice” issued under railway byelaws by a private operator, SABA Ltd. The notice was designed to appear as a statutory criminal penalty, yet it had no basis in law and was never enforceable by the issuing company.

Even if it had been a genuine Penalty Notice (which it was not), the alleged offence occurred on 12th September 2024. Under the railway byelaws, any prosecution would have had to commence by 12th March 2025. That deadline has now passed. The legal window for prosecution is closed. The matter is legally defunct.

However, rather than abandon the charge, the company has repackaged the expired and unlawful Penalty Notice as a civil debt and is now issuing threats of court proceedings—despite knowing that no valid liability exists. Worse still, these threats are being issued through a firm of solicitors, Moorside Legal, who appear to be knowingly attempting to enforce a void criminal allegation as if it were a civil claim. This is not a minor administrative failure. It is a deliberate and systematic deception that I believe constitutes fraud by false representation, and arguably extortion, under the Fraud Act 2006.

I have enclosed a briefing which sets out the legal position in detail, including relevant statutory references and the Department for Transport’s position on enforcement under railway byelaws. I hope you will agree that this issue requires urgent attention—not just in my case, but to prevent others from falling victim to similar unlawful tactics.

I respectfully ask you to consider the following actions:

1. Submit a Parliamentary Question to the Home Secretary and/or Secretary of State for Transport, along the following lines:

“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to investigate and prosecute private parking companies and their legal representatives who knowingly issue or pursue expired or unlawful ‘Penalty Notices’ under railway byelaws, and whether such conduct is being treated as fraud by false representation and extortion under the Fraud Act 2006.”

2. Refer this matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as Moorside Legal is acting in breach of their professional obligations by pursuing an unenforceable and misrepresented claim.

3. Raise the issue in Parliament or with the relevant ministerial departments as a matter of urgent public interest and consumer protection.

This is not a dispute over parking. It is a coordinated attempt to misuse the legal system to extract money from the public under false pretences. If allowed to continue, it undermines the distinction between criminal and civil enforcement and erodes confidence in both.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I would be happy to provide any further documents or evidence you require.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

And you can adapt this briefing document (include a copy of both sides of the Penalty Notice) to submit with the letter to your MP:

Briefing Document for MP

Subject: Misuse of "Penalty Notices" by Private Parking Companies on Statutory Land (e.g. Railway Property)

Summary:

This briefing relates to a fraudulent and deeply misleading practice being carried out by a private parking company, SABA Ltd, operating on railway land. This company is issuing documents styled as "Penalty Notices" for alleged breaches of railway byelaws, despite having no statutory authority to do so. These notices are falsely framed to resemble statutory criminal penalties and are intended to intimidate recipients into making payment.

In my case, I received a notice referring to an alleged parking contravention on 12th September 2024. The notice was styled as a Penalty Notice, implying enforcement under the railway byelaws. Under the law, any genuine prosecution for such a breach must be brought in the Magistrates’ Court within six months—i.e., by 12th March 2025. That time has now passed. The legal opportunity to prosecute under Byelaw 24(1) has expired. The case is legally dead.

Despite this, the company has repackaged the expired and unlawful Penalty Notice as a civil debt and is now threatening litigation in the civil courts. This is not only dishonest; it is legally impossible. A genuine Penalty Notice is a matter of criminal law and cannot be transformed into a civil claim once the prosecution window has closed. This act represents a blatant and deliberate attempt to bypass the law.

The original notice is neither a valid Penalty Notice (PN) nor a legitimate Parking Charge Notice (PCN). It is a fraudulent hybrid, deliberately styled to appear authoritative, with the intent of misleading the recipient into believing they face criminal liability. The document makes no distinction between civil and criminal enforcement and does not clarify the actual legal status of the charge. This is a false representation.

A copy of the notice is attached to illustrate the concerns raised. It demonstrates how private companies are misusing the format and language of statutory enforcement to coerce payment under false pretences.

Key Legal Distinctions:

• Byelaw 14(4)(i) refers to the liability of the 'owner' of a vehicle for a parking charge in the event of a contravention. However, there is no official public register of vehicle ownership in the UK. The DVLA's vehicle registration document (V5C) states clearly and in bold: "THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP." Being the registered keeper is not proof, nor even strong evidence, of ownership.

In civil law, the only parties who can be pursued for a parking charge are the driver, or in limited cases, the keeper or hirer—but even then, only under clearly defined statutory conditions such as those set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (which does not apply on railway land). The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities, and persuasive appellate case law (e.g. VCS v Edward [2023]) has confirmed that there can be no presumption that the keeper is the driver, let alone the owner.

In contrast, criminal enforcement under Byelaw 24(1) requires the prosecution to prove the case under the much stricter 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To impose liability on a person as the “owner” in a criminal context would require positive evidence of ownership, not an inference based on keeper status. Any attempt to rely on DVLA keeper data to infer ownership for the purpose of criminal liability is legally flawed and risks misapplication of criminal law.

• Byelaw 24(1) provides for the criminal prosecution of byelaw breaches, but only by a Train Operating Company or a public authority with express statutory powers. Private companies have no authority under this byelaw to prosecute or issue criminal fines.

The DfT has confirmed that while it accepts the use of PCNs for civil enforcement under Byelaw 14, it does not authorise the use of "Penalty Notices" implying enforcement under Byelaw 24(1). To date, no unregulated private parking company, such as APCOA or SABA, has demonstrated any agreement or statutory delegation authorising them to issue Penalty Notices under the authority of a TOC or statutory landowner.

This position aligns with broader transport policy. Following the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991, most parking offences were decriminalised and enforcement shifted to civil law. In line with this, the DfT stated in a 2018 response to POPLA that it does not expect minor parking breaches under Byelaw 14 to be prosecuted under Byelaw 24(1), but rather addressed contractually by private operators managing railway car parks.

Why This Matters:

False Representation and Coercion:

The notice I received implied I had committed a criminal offence and demanded payment directly to a private company. This is misleading and constitutes a false representation under the Fraud Act 2006, and possibly blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.

Funds Misappropriated:

Any legitimate statutory fine would be payable to the public purse. These notices divert payments to a private company, undermining proper enforcement and eroding trust in genuine statutory penalties.

DfT Acknowledgement:

The DfT recognises that Byelaw 14 may be enforced through civil “ticketing” by agents of TOCs, but it has not provided any basis for criminal enforcement powers being delegated to private operators.

Terminology Confusion:

The use of the term “Penalty” in this context is misleading. “Penalty” should be reserved for statutory fines. The correct terminology for a civil charge is “Parking Charge Notice” (PCN). The DfT's own inconsistent use of the word “penalty” in correspondence has inadvertently contributed to this confusion.

Suggested Actions:

I respectfully ask that you:

1. Submit a Parliamentary Question such as:

"To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to investigate and prosecute private parking companies and their legal representatives who knowingly issue or pursue expired or unlawful ‘Penalty Notices’ under railway byelaws, and whether such conduct is being treated as fraud by false representation and extortion under the Fraud Act 2006."

2. Write to the Justice Secretary and/or Home Secretary to:

• Clarify the legal position of such notices;

• Inquire whether this conduct is being treated as potentially fraudulent;

• Ask whether guidance has been issued to police forces on this matter.

• Refer the matter to the local Police and Crime Commissioner and chief constable to seek confirmation of their approach to such practices.

• Refer Moorside Legal’s conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation.

Conclusion:

This issue represents a dangerous abuse of public trust. Private companies are misusing criminal-style notices to collect money unlawfully, and in doing so are targeting ordinary people who are unaware of the legal distinctions involved. Their behaviour is fraudulent, coercive, and systematically misleading.

This matter demands urgent parliamentary scrutiny—not just for my case, but to protect the public from this growing pattern of deception.

Thank you for your time and attention.

So, as you can see, you have nothing to worry about and you should take the actions I have suggested above.

They (SABA) cannot take you to court.

If they could and if there was anything in it for them* they would have done so ages ago.

Think laterally.

They've got their hooks into you because somehow they have your SMS and email, they are also inside your head.

b789 gave you the opportunity to get on the front foot, but it's not been taken.
Do it now. You'll at least have the satisfaction of fighting back when otherwise all you can do is respond(by posting here for information) to their comms.

Railway Byelaws https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79c14b40f0b66d161ade8c/railway-byelaws.pdf

See 14(4)(i), then look at your V5C then look at the Interpretation byelaw 25.

'The owner'.... 14(4)(i);
'This document is not proof of ownership' ...V5C;
'Owner' not otherwise defined in the Interpretation and therefore the common meaning of the word would be imported into the byelaws.

*- criminal offences = punishment, fines being paid to the Crown;
civil - compensation (e.g. breach of contract etc.) to the claimant.

There is nothing in this war of attrition for them UNLESS they think you'll give way. Plenty of people do because the correspondence is couched in legal sounding phrases and mystique but when stripped of this it's waffle.

Up to you what you do.

Have a read of the complete byelaws if you have spare time and nothing better to do because whenever you come within their jurisdiction they apply (the phrase included in tickets and notices displayed at stations: issued subject to Railway Byelaws) A right riveting read!

You should reply (sort of) because, unlike the tide of correspondence to date, there is a place for a Letter of Claim in the formal process of the administration of justice CIVIL PROCEDURES!

Dear Sir,
Letter of Claim dated 6 May 2025

I refer to the above in which you make repeated references to County Court claim, debt, county court judgment and the like..

I also refer you to the correspondence sent on behalf of your client by ZZPS dated **, *** (list all the dates) in which the following phrase stands out by virtue of having been written in bold capitals in each:

'..A BREACH OF RAILWAY  BYELAWS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH CAN BE PURSUED BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE PROSECUTION IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT'

Clearly your client has not briefed you well on this matter. There is no claim, in the sense in which a Letter of Claim might be valid, merely an assertion that there has been 'a breach of railway byelaws'.

Would you please respond having spoken to your client.

Yours faithfully

My thoughts.

Just send your response to the LoC as a pdf attachment in an email to info@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC in customersupport.uk@sabagroup.com and also yourself. However, I would expand on @H C Andersen's suggested letter as follows:

Dear Sir,

Letter of Claim dated 6 May 2025

I write in response to the above, in which you repeatedly refer to an alleged “debt”, a prospective County Court claim, and the possibility of a County Court Judgment. These statements purport to rely on a civil cause of action.

However, I must draw your attention to correspondence previously sent on behalf of your client by their agent ZZPS, dated [insert dates], in which the following statement was prominently featured in bold capital letters in each:

“A BREACH OF RAILWAY BYELAWS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH CAN BE PURSUED BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE PROSECUTION IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT.”

This is not a minor detail. It goes to the heart of your client’s claimed entitlement. Your client has, by design, issued a demand styled as a Penalty Notice—a term reserved for statutory enforcement under Railway Byelaws—and has framed it explicitly as a criminal matter, implying liability for a criminal offence.

It is therefore wholly inappropriate—and arguably unethical and legally unsustainable—for you, as a regulated legal firm, to now attempt to reframe that same demand as a civil contractual “debt” capable of County Court enforcement. A party cannot pursue a statutory penalty by issuing civil proceedings when no valid contract is pleaded and no intention ever existed to prosecute the alleged offence in the proper forum, namely the Magistrates’ Court.

Your attempt to civilly enforce what your client has presented as a criminal matter risks misleading the court and is contrary to both the spirit and substance of the Civil Procedure Rules. It also raises serious concerns under the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Standards and Regulations, particularly regarding your duty not to mislead or abuse the court process and your obligation to act with integrity.

Unless you confirm in writing that this matter will be withdrawn, I intend to submit a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, enclosing both your Letter of Claim and your client’s earlier correspondence, as clear evidence of conduct falling below the expected professional standard.

Furthermore, your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the alleged claim and fails to provide copies of any evidence your client intends to rely upon. It is therefore in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC), specifically paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1, and 5.2, as well as the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct at paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c).

For clarity, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so. There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver on any given occasion. Your client cannot pursue me as driver, as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

If your client intends to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), they are barred from doing so. The alleged event occurred on railway land, which is not “relevant land” under PoFA, and therefore keeper liability does not apply. Your client has no cause of action against me as either keeper or driver. Any attempt to issue proceedings against me will be defended robustly and I will apply for costs on the basis of unreasonable and vexatious conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Because your Letter Before Claim does not comply with PAPDC, this letter constitutes a formal request for all the information and documentation required by the protocol. Unless and until your client complies fully with the pre-action requirements, they must not issue proceedings.

Accordingly, I require your client to provide the following:

1. A clear explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as the driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
4. Details of the claim: how long the vehicle was allegedly parked, how the claimed amount arose and was calculated
5. If the claim is contractual, the date of the agreement, parties to it, and a copy of the contract
6. Photographic evidence showing the vehicle in breach of the terms
7. If the claim is for trespass, provide details
8. A copy of the contract with the landowner granting your client authority to enforce and litigate, as required by the PPSCoP
9. A site plan showing signage locations
10. Photographs of signage including size, font, wording, and positioning
11. A breakdown of the original charge and any added interest or fees
12. An explanation of the £70 'debt recovery' fee, whether it includes VAT, and if so, why I am being charged for the operator’s VAT
13. Clarification of the legal basis for the principal sum: is it claimed as damages or contractual consideration?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also require it to meet my obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client fails to provide this information, I will rely on Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Ltd v The Park West Club Ltd [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd [2007] EWHC 855 to seek an order for a stay of proceedings and sanctions against your client under paragraphs 13, 15 and 16 of the Practice Direction.

I confirm that I will respond within 30 days once I receive a compliant Letter of Claim. Until then, your client is not in a position to issue proceedings.

Please take instructions and respond accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Also, get that complaint off to your MP. You have everything you need. Just look up your MPs email contact which can be found here:

https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons

Also, did you submit a DVLA complaint?