SABA PARK Claim Form

Alherts77

Hi,
I have received a letter for 5 parking contraventions at Watford Junction Car park dating back to  Jan 2022 (The oldest being in 29/09/2021

I've submitted an AOS today (which after reading another Thread was wrong to do) what would be the next step regarding my defense as thought there was a 6 month rule on when this would of have had to been issued by?

Appreciate any advice as new to this forum,

Claim Form


Debt-Claims.com





Thanks.

KeithP

Fascinating to see that Saba use the words Penalty Notice in the POCs.

Also worth noting that for each of the alleged incidents, Debt-claims.com (claiming to be working for ZZPS who in turn were instructed by QDR) have added a Tracing Fee of £12.00 as well as the more usual £70.00 Admin Fee.

There is even mention of Railway Byelaws in that Debt-claims.com letter but due to masking difficult to understand what is written there.

Alherts77

@Grizebeck Sorry for the direct approach but Coupon-Mad mentioned on another Thread that you might be able to explain how to apply for summary judgment.

Many thanks,

Coupon-mad

Alherts77 said:

@Grizebeck Sorry for the direct approach but Coupon-Mad mentioned on another Thread that you might be able to explain how to apply for summary judgment

If not, and you have acknowledged and want to defend this one, here's part of a defence that another poster with a SABA penalty claim has prepared:

DEFENCE

__________

1. 

(As template defence)

The facts as known to the Defendant

2. The POC are inadequate, failing to identify any contract date under which the proceedings are brought or details of breaches or entitlement to damages such that a detailed defence cannot yet be prepared.

3.  If, which is unclear from the pleading, the claim relates to railway land, then failure by a motorist to comply with the byelaws is a criminal offence. The county court is not the appropriate forum to hear a claim for a criminal penalty and in any event is not brought within the statutory six month window for bringing a prosecution, such that the court is invited to strike out the claim.

4.  The Claimant has repeatedly referenced byelaws in  pre-action correspondence which shows that they are fully aware that these charges are for criminal penalties and cannot be pursued as a breach of contract.

5.  The location is not “relevant land” as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and there is therefore no keeper liability.  The Defendant has no legal or moral obligation to identify the driver(s) on the material date(s).

6.  Reference is made to Appendix G of the British Parking Association Code of Practice in which is is made clear that:  "4.1 The Railway Byelaws set out no timescales for the issue of a penalty for breach of Byelaws. However, the parking operator is timed out of prosecuting the motorist through the Magistrates Court for breach of Byelaws after six months pursuant to section 127(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980."

7.  In the alternative, the Defendant intends to rely on a line of recent persuasive authorities, culminating in the appeal case of Vehicle Control Services v Edward (HOKF6C9C) in which HHJ Gargan was: 

“... persuaded by Mr Yamba that the evidential effect of establishing that the defendant was the relevant keeper, does not produce any inference, rebuttable or otherwise, that the defendant was driving on this particular occasion. Therefore, there is no material inference for the defendant to rebut. As there was nothing for him to rebut, it does not seem to me to be right to draw an adverse inference from his failure to engage in seeking to rebut it. Therefore, I find that the learned district judge fell into error in making the finding she did.”

8.  Another recent persuasive appeal judgment is also relevant: Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44).  Following the same rationale, it is clear that this Claimant’s  PoC fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch held that: 

"the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract."

9.  The PoC divulge no cause of action nor sufficient details to file a full defence.  The full details of any "contract" alleged to be broken have not been provided.  In any event, what was issued (over 2 years ago) were Penalty Notices, not contractual charges. 

10.  The Claimant has failed to include the reason that their charges (Penalties) were issued, i.e. the material breach(es) and whether they are relying upon the law of contract.  The Defendant respectfully requests that this claim be struck out as a consequence of the Claimant’s deficient PoC and/or the fact that any claim for byelaws Penalties is statute-barred.

(11 onwards -as template defence...re-numbered).

Coupon-mad

I think you and the other poster should BOTH report the solicitor who signed this claim form off for Askews to the SRA, once your defences are in.

The SRA number for Askews LLP is at the foot of the pre-action letter.

Maybe a joint complaint to show this isn't one isolated oversight, it's going to be a whole batch that QDR swerved filing claims for (quite right, these ones should never have been brought to the CNBC).

One wonders how many have been paid, and how many have caused default CCJs.

troublemaker22

OP, what you posted was a solicitor’s letter not a court claim form. You mentioned filing an AOS which suggests you have received a claim form from the court. Please show us the first page of the claim form, redacting the claim number, the password, your name, your address, the vehicle number and any reference numbers. 

Coupon-mad

Ah, there was/is a claim form.

Now removed from this thread (maybe it was showing data or the name of the solicitor).