Saba parking fine... but no Saba sign!

sillyparker2025

Hi all, any guidance appreciated...

I was parked for a short amount of time on the approach road to Finchley Central station car park - exactly where the Mercedes is in this Streetview image (https : //!!!!!!.com/ycmjrhvy) - and received a fine for "Failing to display a valid staff E-permit". I previously had a permit but did not know when it expired (I still work at the company but in a different role so no longer entitled to it, hence couldn't renew). Regardless, as that is my mistake and happy to take responsibility, are Saba able to prosecute me given that there is no signage whatsoever from them in the area or the entrance to the area where my car was parked? Should I appeal on that basis? The signage is further down at the entrance to the actual car park (https : //!!!!!!.com/3a5278x3), not on the approach road.

sillyparker2025

Sorry, clearly my tiny url links for Streetview haven't worked - if you put tiny url (no space) where the !!!! are in the above post it may work

ChirpyChicken

Do nothing for now
As long it's not a lease or company car await the notice to keeper in the post.

Coupon-mad

There is no risk of 'prosecution' from an invoice like that. This isn't a Penalty.

I agree: as long it's not a lease or company car (and as long as the address on your logbook is up to date) await the notice to keeper in the post. 

sillyparker2025

Notice to keeper received...

Coupon-mad

Here we go again: £127 NTK. And there will be a further added £1.95 on the back, too.

Both unlawful = nearly £29 more than POFA or the CoP allows.

3 examples like this you can read:

#1 GBP
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81634369/#Comment_81634369

#2 SABA
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81374319/#Comment_81374319

#3 GBP
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81655178/#Comment_81655178

sillyparker2025

Very useful stuff, thank you!

So from reading the Newbies thread and the examples above, I believe I can either write back using the 'first appeal' template and refuse to name driver, or leave it and wait for letters from various parties until things time out in 6 months [this is what was said about an Indigo railway PCN, assume my case is similar]?

Coupon-mad

No because yours isn't a penalty notice. Doesn't time out. Six years to sue. 

doubledotcom

Oh dear... this is a bit naughty:

...the Creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges and any charges associated with recovery from the registered keeper as described under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Methinks that they are in breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d), which is therefore a breach of the KADOE contract.


Whilst TfL may try to absolve SABA by declaring the following is an FoI request last year:

1. Is parking at East Finchley Station provided or controlled by Transport for London, either directly or on TFL’s behalf by a private car park operator? The car park is owned by Places for London (a subsidiary of TfL) and is contracted out to Saba UK to manage on our behalf.

2. Is parking at East Finchley Station governed by the Transport For London Railway Byelaws?  Our car parks are not Governed by Railway Byelaws, but POFA (Protection of Freedom Act).

Ownership/outsourcing doesn’t change status. Moving a car park to Places for London (a TfL subsidiary) and contracting Saba to manage it does not, of itself, take the site outside the TfL byelaws. Byelaws attach to land that is “railway” or “railway premises” within the TfL byelaws’ own definitions, not to which group company holds title or who operates it.

Status is a matter of law, not practice. Whether tickets are issued under PoFA is irrelevant to classification. If the site is TfL “railway premises”, it is under statutory control and therefore not relevant land for PoFA keeper liability.

Once the TfL Byelaws 2011 were made, they automatically applied to all land defined as railway or railway premises within TfL’s undertaking. That status can only be changed through a formal legal process. Simply transferring ownership to a subsidiary such as Places for London, or administratively reclassifying it in TfL’s property records, does not remove the byelaws’ effect. The land remains under statutory control unless TfL makes a new byelaw or other statutory instrument expressly revoking or amending the existing byelaws as they apply to that site. In short, the absence of formal revocation means the byelaws continue to apply, regardless of how TfL manages or labels the property.