What a wasted effort on your part! A SABA (or any other unregulated private parking firm such as APCOA) Penalty Notice is a fake instrument of fraud.
The wording in the SABA-issued Penalty Notice (PN) is deeply problematic, misleading, procedurally defective, and legally dubious in several respects.
1. Misrepresentation of Enforcement Options (Civil vs Criminal)The PN states:
"An offence has been committed by breaching Byelaw 14... our Client has the option to pursue you through the Magistrates Court by way of a private criminal prosecution... Alternatively, legal action may be taken via the Civil Procedure in the County Court..."
This falsely implies that the operator can choose between criminal prosecution and civil litigation.
A breach of Byelaw 14 is a criminal matter only. There is no contractual or statutory basis for issuing a civil claim in the county court for a breach of a statutory byelaw. If the operator wishes to pursue a criminal penalty, it must lay information before a magistrates’ court within 6 months as per Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.127(1).
The hybrid “
pay us or we might prosecute—or sue you in the County Court” message is legally incoherent and is a deliberate attempt to pressure payment by suggesting multiple enforcement routes that do not exist.
A breach of Railway Byelaw 14 is a summary-only criminal offence. No civil liability arises unless the alleged breach can be framed as a separate contractual matter, which this notice does not do.
2. False or Ambiguous Authority for Data Access"...your data has been released by the DVLA as our client has reasonable cause... Their records indicate you were the registered keeper on the date the offence was committed."
This implies the DVLA released data on the basis of an established offence, not merely a suspected breach. The language is misleading because:
• The operator has not proven an offence has occurred.
• No conviction exists.
• The DVLA provides data under Regulation 27(1)(e) for reasonable cause, but not for enforcement of hypothetical or presumed criminal offences.
Using DVLA data for private enforcement of alleged criminal offences — especially in a case where no prosecution has been commenced — must be very carefully justified. The language used here is legally sloppy and arguably exceeds what is permitted under the KADOE contract with DVLA.
3. Misuse of the Term "Penalty""The above penalty is now due..."
This uses the term “penalty” as if it is a fixed fine backed by law, when in fact:
• No court has imposed a fine.
• No legal process has occurred.
• A Penalty Notice of this kind is a voluntary out-of-court disposal with no legal compulsion to pay unless or until the matter is prosecuted and proven.
Any notice demanding payment for an alleged breach must clearly state that payment is voluntary and does not constitute an admission of guilt or a statutory penalty, unless such a penalty has been lawfully imposed by a court. Failure to provide this information constitutes a misleading commercial practice under Sections 225 to 229 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, and may also involve an omission of material information prohibited under Section 227:
• Section 226 covers false or misleading information, deceptive presentation, and confusion with other traders
• Schedule 20 of the DMCC Act (Banned Practices) includes falsely claiming to have authority to impose fines or penalties
4. Reference to “Additional Costs” Lacks Legal BasisAdditional costs will be incurred should the case progress through either the Civil or Magistrates courts."
In a criminal case, prosecution costs may be awarded upon conviction — but:
• That’s a matter for the court to decide, not the private operator.
• In civil claims, no claim can be brought for a byelaw breach unless an entirely separate contractual cause of action exists (which this PN does not assert).
Suggesting additional costs may apply if payment is not made misleads the recipient into believing they must pay now to avoid a guaranteed penalty later — when in fact no legal process has even begun.
5. Lack of Clarity About Who “Our Client” Is"...our Client has reasonable cause..."
"...our Client has the option to pursue you..."
Nowhere does the PN explicitly confirm who “our Client” is, or whether they are a Train Operating Company (TOC) or just a parking subcontractor.
For enforcement under Railway Byelaws to be valid:
• The prosecuting party must be the "relevant person" under Byelaw 24(1) — i.e. the TOC.
• A private parking contractor must clearly state it is acting on behalf of the TOC, and not purport to act in its own right.
• Failure to do so is unlawfully exercising a public function and renders the notice misleading and unenforceable.
So, in summary... The Penalty Notice issued by SABA contains a number of serious legal deficiencies. It misrepresents the available enforcement mechanisms by implying that both criminal prosecution and civil action are viable for a single statutory byelaw offence, when in fact only prosecution in a magistrates’ court is lawfully available. The reference to an “offence” having already been committed is misleading, as no such determination has been made by a court.
Furthermore, the notice fails to make clear whether the issuer is the relevant prosecuting authority under Byelaw 24(1), or acting with authority from a Train Operating Company (TOC). These ambiguities, along with the implied threat of additional costs and penalties absent a court process, breach the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), particularly under Section 226 and Schedule 20. Any such Penalty Notice must clearly and transparently distinguish between an actual court-imposed penalty and a voluntary offer to dispose of an alleged matter without formal prosecution.
You are a victim of fraud by false representation and it should be reported under the Fraud Act 2006 to the police. Do not use Action Fraud. You will need to contact your local police force Economic Crime unit although they my refer you to the British Transport Police. Mention The Fraud Act 2006, s.2 – Fraud by false representation.
