UPDATE: Email received post 6 months. Letter received from SABA Parking

del1rious

Hello,
A penalty notice was left on a vehicle a couple of months back at a train station. As per the advice of these forums, nothing was done about it bar an email asking some generic questions. The attached letter has now been received- it is being posted here to be documented for the benefit of other users and also to ask what the next steps should be? Is it just to continue with emailing questions? Does this put the case on "hold" whilst queries are being asked?
Sorry its a bit wonky
Thanks

Castle

Have they answered all of your generic questions.. if not, refer them to your previous letter.

Fruitcake

Continue to play Q & A ping pong, or ignore if you prefer until six months have passed from the date of the alleged event.

Just ensure the driver is not identified. The driver can, and the owner may be liable for a breach of byelaws, but the keeper cannot.

Nothing will put this on hold but the important thing is to get it past the six months deadline for them to start court proceedings. The Magistrate's Act is your friend here since it prohibits SABA from doing anything after that point.

del1rious

Yes they did. Rather quickly unfortunately. 

I suppose my question was is there anything to stop them pressing in with court proceedings whilst I am still asking questions/queries?

still just over 4 months until the 6 month threshold! 

del1rious

Driver not identified, hence threatening statement in the letter

Fruitcake

As already mentioned, continue the inane Q & A ping pong, by post, every three weeks or so. Alternatively ignore them.

They could of course start court proceedings against the driver or possibly the owner, but since they don't know who that is they would struggle.

Coupon-mad

I suppose my question was is there anything to stop them pressing in with court proceedings whilst I am still asking questions/queries?

Yep, the fact we saw their contract on a thread last year and SABA cannot sue; they are only able to issue letters.

Only the TOC could pursue a case under Railway Byelaws in the Mags court.  Not SABA, and not ZZPS.

del1rious

Coupon-mad said:

I suppose my question was is there anything to stop them pressing in with court proceedings whilst I am still asking questions/queries?

Yep, the fact we saw their contract on a thread last year and SABA cannot sue; they are only able to issue letters.

Only the TOC could pursue a case under Railway Byelaws in the Mags court.  Not SABA, and not ZZPS.

So basically it is all a big scam and they threaten to take people to court over the non-payment to a private parking company? Surely that is not what the criminal court is for. Is it even lawful?

nosferatu1001

Yes, its a big scam
They allege a criminal offence so yes thats what mag is for
Yes its lawful. Its not ethical, and the trsansition to an alleged debt, just after 6 months IS NOT lawful as it is misleading and fraudulent. 

Coupon-mad

del1rious said:

Coupon-mad said:

I suppose my question was is there anything to stop them pressing in with court proceedings whilst I am still asking questions/queries?

Yep, the fact we saw their contract on a thread last year and SABA cannot sue; they are only able to issue letters.

Only the TOC could pursue a case under Railway Byelaws in the Mags court.  Not SABA, and not ZZPS.

So basically it is all a big scam and they threaten to take people to court over the non-payment to a private parking company? 

Yes. SABA's contract does not allow them to sue, either in a the county court or Mags.  It's ''pre-action letters'' only, on behalf of the TOC, and the demands for money are like a bribe: 'pay us £xxx and the TOC won't take you to Mags Court'.  

Surely that is not what the criminal court is for.

Mags court does deal wit byelaws prosecutions but they are very rare and only the TOC could bring a cae within 6 months.  SABA an ZZPS can do diddly squat.

Is it even lawful?

Not unlawful.  The TOC can take you to mags and they can choose to have a private firm issue letters.  If you read them carefully, knowing that SABA cannot actually take any legal action themselves, you will see right through it.

Half_way

what part of the byelaws are they claiming was breached?