SABA/ZZPS Debacle

Molts

PCN received by a colleague for non-payment in a railway car park. No need for responses as I will play letter ping-pong to string it out over 6 months until it becomes statute barred as advised.

The post is more to keep a record of timeline, for interest and hopefully to help others!

Appeal sent in as per blue template at latest possible juncture. ZZPS response woeful, no surprises.

Molts

Further to your correspondence reference xxx dated xxx, please find my appeal below for your consideration.

I dispute your 'penalty charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.:

- If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

- If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

- in all cases, you must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date.

- please confirm where it says in the byelaws that you can charge a penalty.

- I note that your letter is headed "Notice to Owner". I admit I am the registered keeper but on what grounds do you assume I am the owner?

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,
xxxx
Registered Keeper

Molts

Not sure how unclear I was submitting the appeal but see the response from ZZPS! Oh well, kills another 7 days before I send the exact same appeal in again I suppose!

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your recent email.

This matter relates to a Penalty Notice issued under Railway Byelaws. An offence was committed by breaching Railway Byelaw 14 and therefore a Penalty Notice was issued against this vehicle.

The owner of the vehicle is held liable for all Penalty Notices issued on Railway assets in all circumstances, as such we have no cause of action against the driver or hirer of the vehicle.

Photographic evidence can be found online at https://www.ipaymypcn.net to support the offence.

Our client's signage is fully approved by the British Parking Association (BPA) and fully explains the terms and conditions of parking on site.

As no payment was made, a penalty notice has been issued to you as the registered owner of the vehicle.

If you would like to submit an appeal, please forward this within the next 7 days.

Thank you,

Jaime

The_Deep

a penalty notice has been issued to you as the registered owner of the vehicle.

What nonsence, there is no such thing as a registered owner. Write, (idc), telling them so.

Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies

Molts

I'll send "Jaime" the following in 7 days as part of his re-education ;0)

"The Differences Between The Registered Keeper And Owner Of A Vehicle"

The registered keeper is different to the owner of a vehicle. The registered keeper should be the person who is using the vehicle and keeping it, which can sometimes be different to the owner of the vehicle or the person who is responsible for paying for it.

The person who is responsible for the vehicle in terms of official communications from the police and the DVLA is known as the registered keeper, but the owner is the person who has paid for the car or was given it as a present.

The DVLA emphasizes that the person who is named on the registration document, which is sometimes also known as a V5 document, may not necessarily be the owner and that a V5 is not proof of ownership.

For example, this is the case with a company car. The car is owned by the company, but the registration documents (the V5) should show the registered keeper to be the person who uses it on a daily basis, such as an employee.

When a car is used by a married couple, the ownership of any property is typically classed as joint. If the husband was driving the vehicle and stopped by the police for having no insurance, the police would normally accept that he was a joint owner of the vehicle and not investigate the wife for further offenses, such as the owner permitting no insurance.

The_Deep

I see that you are familiar with the game.

Molts

Response sent to "Jamie" 13/10/19:

Good evening

Thank you for your email reply although it would have been more appreciated had you actually read my appeal in the first instance. The title of the email "Appeal PCN etc" would, to most reasonable people, clearly suggest that was an appeal. You have failed to answer any of the queries in the appeal. For the avoidance of any further doubt please find the appeal repeated below.

I now require you to appropriate the arbitrary rejection along with a POPLA code or allow common sense to prevail and cancel the charge.

"you as the registered owner of the vehicle"

Absolute nonsense. There is no such thing as a "registered owner". Registered keeper, perhaps, to which I admit being but as the following extract from the DVLA website shows, the RK and the vehicle owner are two completely different entities:

""The Differences Between The Registered Keeper And Owner Of A Vehicle"

The registered keeper is different to the owner of a vehicle. The registered keeper should be the person who is using the vehicle and keeping it, which can sometimes be different to the owner of the vehicle or the person who is responsible for paying for it.

The person who is responsible for the vehicle in terms of official communications from the police and the DVLA is known as the registered keeper, but the owner is the person who has paid for the car or was given it as a present.

The DVLA emphasizes that the person who is named on the registration document, which is sometimes also known as a V5 document, may not necessarily be the owner and that a V5 is not proof of ownership.

For example, this is the case with a company car. The car is owned by the company, but the registration documents (the V5) should show the registered keeper to be the person who uses it on a daily basis, such as an employee.

When a car is used by a married couple, the ownership of any property is typically classed as joint. If the husband was driving the vehicle and stopped by the police for having no insurance, the police would normally accept that he was a joint owner of the vehicle and not investigate the wife for further offenses, such as the owner permitting no insurance."

I reiterate the following question from my appeal and require a full and thorough response:

"- I note that your letter is headed "Notice to Owner". I admit I am the registered keeper but on what grounds do you assume I am the owner?"

Appeal copy/paste:

Further to your correspondence reference xxx dated xxx, please find my appeal below for your consideration.

I dispute your 'penalty charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.:

- If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

- If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

- in all cases, you must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date.

- please confirm where it says in the byelaws that you can charge a penalty.

- I note that your letter is headed "Notice to Owner". I admit I am the registered keeper but on what grounds do you assume I am the owner?

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,
Mr xxx
Registered Keeper

Molts

Already received first DC trash from ZZPS and they have not even responded to the initial appeal. "Charge" already raised to £170 plus £1.95 handling fee :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Complaint to the BPA in for what it's worth.

Email to ZZPS

Absolutely disgusted to be receiving the attached whilst still undergoing the appeals process. Have no doubt I will be making a strong complaint to the BPA with respect to your behaviour and will also be writing to my local MP ensuring he is fully aware of the following legislation:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Speaking of the BPA you spuriously claim that "Our client's signage is fully approved by the British Parking Association (BPA)". I find that extremely hard to believe as it is woeful and as such require proof of the alleged endorsement of your signage at that location by the BPA.

image.png We have been instructed to recover the above balance which remains outstanding

Really? So you have instructed yourselves to recover the "alleged debt"? Explain.

image.png our Client believes they have sufficient evidence to pursue this through the courts if necessary

They do? Then please explain in detail and I require you provide me with all such evidence as a matter of urgency in order that I can fully consider my next course of action.

RK

Fruitcake

Tel them to get a move on then. They only have six months to get this in front of a magistrate. Oh wait a minute, they can't. :rotfl:

Molts

No suprises that the BPA didn't really give one about the complaint raised but it did have a desired effect of killing another 28 days as they reopened the opportunity to appeal to ITAL again!

Dear Mr xxx

Thank you for your patience while we investigated your complaint, which was delayed by me requesting further information from Saba.

Saba have informed us that the appeal received was a generic template. In these instances, they allow an extra 7 days for the motorist to submit a second appeal, with information that is specific to the charge they are appealing. Your second appeal was received after the 7 day-timeframe.

In this situation, we would have expected Saba to treat your first correspondence as an appeal, and issue a rejection if that was their decision.

Therefore, as rectification, Saba have generated the following ITAL code, so that you can appeal to the Appeals Service (within 28 days from 25/11/2019). If you do not wish to appeal further, a payment of £100 will be accepted to close the parking charge.

As Saba responded appropriately, we have now closed the case. Please contact Saba directly if you require any more information about your charge.

I hope the information above is useful.

Molts

My response...I think I was a little upset!

SABA are lying to you. I never submitted an appeal at all. The ITAL website failed to send out the verification email and they failed to reset the link in spite of several emails back and forth.

With respect to "template appeals" they are used in response to template PCN's and template threatening and harassing debt collection letters. The reason for my complaint was due to receiving threatening debt collection notices even whilst the appeals process was occurring - a blatant breach of the CoP.

You are as guilty as they are for failing to address the key issues highlighted in my complaint. This, however, comes as no surprise bearing in mind they are your paymasters after all.

I'll take it to a judge and allow common sense to prevail rather than dealing with any more of your or your operators nonsense.