QDR / PCN Train Station Car Park

Dawsonsleek

Hello all,

Please forgive me if i'm posting this incorrectly, i'm new to using the forums here and in need of some advice relating to a PCN in a train station car park.

The driver received a parking ticket back in July this year. Parking had been paid for, unfortunately car was parked in an 'unauthorized'' area. The £50 ticket was paid and that was that.

The driver then receives a late payment letter from SABA asking for over £120. Very strange as the single ticket that was issued to the car was paid for within a week of it being issued.

Since the date of the late payment letter from SABA the driver has been arguing out the fact that only 1 parking ticket was on the car when he returned to it, they claim that there was 2.

Essentially SABA are trying to charge the driver a late payment on a parking ticket that wasn't even on the car!

Anyway, here we are 4 months down the line and QDR are beginning to get involved. I have received two letters now & ignored both. I would just like to know the risks at this stage of not paying...

Can the driver end up paying thousands more at a magistrates court?

No CCJ's etc have been threatened as all letters are addressed to the company, not the driver.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you -

waamo

Have you named the driver or owner to them? I do not mean the registered keeper, they know who that is and they may not be either the driver or owner.

Dawsonsleek

Hi waamo -

No, never named the driver or owner.

However several messages from SABA & ZZPS have been replied to from the drivers work email account, with a signature name etc....

waamo

Dawsonsleek wrote: »

Hi waamo -

No, never named the driver or owner.

However several messages from SABA & ZZPS have been replied to from the drivers work email account, with a signature name etc....

If they don't know for certain they can't assume. Cease communication with them. They only have 6 months to prosecute and if they don't know who to prosecute they can't just pick a name out of thin air.

Silence is golden from now on.

Dawsonsleek

So they cant prosecute the company or take it to magistrates court over the debt?

waamo

Dawsonsleek wrote: »

So they cant prosecute the company or take it to magistrates court over the debt?

They can if they know for certain the company is the legal owner. That's why I'm saying keep quiet so you don't inadvertently drop anyone in it.

fisherjim

Dawsonsleek wrote: »

So they cant prosecute the company or take it to magistrates court over the debt?

Who said there is any debt?

Dawsonsleek

Well I guess so....

Just concerned it could potentially go to a magistrates court and the fee could end up being thousands of pounds.... I've read on here that with county court hearings only the PCN total can be recovered. It seems a bit different with magistrates, legal fees etc?

Are you suggesting there is no way of them finding out who the legal owner of the vehicle is?

Thanks for all the advice so far

Umkomaas

Are you suggesting there is no way of them finding out who the legal owner of the vehicle is?

Yes there is - you tell them! :cool:

waamo

Dawsonsleek wrote: »

Well I guess so....

Just concerned it could potentially go to a magistrates court and the fee could end up being thousands of pounds.... I've read on here that with county court hearings only the PCN total can be recovered. It seems a bit different with magistrates, legal fees etc?

Are you suggesting there is no way of them finding out who the legal owner of the vehicle is?

Thanks for all the advice so far

No I'm not suggesting there is no way they can find out who the legal owner is. I'm stating categorically the only way they can find out is if somebody tells them. That somebody is likely to be you if you say something in error.

Dawsonsleek

Ok i'm with you both -

Do you know how often these cases actually escalate to a magistrates court?

So best option for now is to ignore QDR? Was considering replying via the company asking for evidence as requested previously to SABA and ZZPS to which neither responded.