3 parking Parking Fines - Railway Car Park + ANPR [auto-renew subscription failure]

Coupon-mad

Yep. You have summed it up

And we know (can prove from those Askews moneyclaims) that SABA have retained statute barred data then used it later for another purpose than it was supplied for (byelaws penalty only. 6 months limitation period, Magistrates Court only).

They tried to use small claims over some saved batches of these PNs years after they had expired (statute barred), so this scam quite simply isn't safe to sit outside of government regulation.

Your case is important!

Please show your evidence in your response to the Public Consultation, especially when answering the question about POPLA and the IAS. Tell the MHCLG and show them your 'Penalty Notice' and the SABA rejection letter only offering an unknown (is it BPA? Is it independent?) 'third appeals service' (whose website has a BPA member logo) and ask if they knew about it.

Given that the PN and/or SABA rejection letter and/or the sign very likely(?) carry the BPA AOS roundel logo, I'd argue this is misleading and looks like these ones will fall between the cracks in the MHCLG new Code unless they address railway byelaws PNs specifically.

You can't have signs and letters proclaiming an operator is in the BPA AOS yet not offering the Single Appeals service that the government intends to cover ALL private managed land.

Coupon-mad

Rob_tt said:

Hi all,

I’m looking for some advice regarding a 3 Penalty Charges I’ve received at my local Train Station (via ANPR).

• Operator: SABA Park Services (via ZZPS)
• Alleged Breach: Failing to obtain a valid ticket/cashless parking session

 

Background:
I am a long-standing monthly permit holder at this car park. My permit was set up with auto-renew (started 26th June 2025). I did not receive any notification that my renewal failed (checked with bank – no issues, checked with SABA parking and they saw it had not auto-renewed). As a result, I continued to park under the genuine belief that my permit was valid.

I’ve since received 3 PCNs, all caused by the same issue.

As soon as I became aware of the problem (after receiving the first notice), I immediately checked and reinstated my monthly permit and ensured auto-renew was active again.

What I’ve done so far:

• Appealed directly to the Parking Admin Centre (ZZPS) explaining the auto-renew failure.
• Appeal was rejected on the basis that “it’s the driver’s responsibility to ensure a valid permit is in place.”
• They did not dispute that I had auto-renew set up, only that they place the burden entirely on the motorist.

Other relevant points:

• I have a history of consistent monthly payments.
• I’ve had previous issues with the SABA app not working, meaning I’ve sometimes had to use other platforms to pay.
• I have searched my inbox, junk, and spam folders for any failed payment notifications — none were received.

Next step:
I’m now at the stage of appealing to The Appeals Service (AS) and want to make sure my case is framed as strongly as possible. My argument is essentially that this was a system failure + lack of notification, not non-payment, and that the BPA Code of Practice requires fairness and proportionality in such cases.

Questions:

1. Has anyone had success appealing SABA/ZZPS Penalty Notices to The Appeals Service on similar grounds?
2. Is there any case law, BPA guidance, or template wording I should include to strengthen the “legitimate expectation / fairness” angle?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Have you lost yet and started ignoring them?

Like this case?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81648635/#Comment_81648635

Show us the 'AS decision please. Is it a match for that useless one? And

FIGHTBACK ALERT: deadline extended!

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline next week.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam over 18 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.

kryten3000

A reputable company would have sent an alert "there was a problem with your auto-renewal" by app, text or email.

doubledotcom

If you tell us the name of the railway station, an FoI request to the TOC should reveal the actual contract between them and SABA. All useful stuff for future reference and pleadings.

Rob_tt

doubledotcom said:

If you tell us the name of the railway station, an FoI request to the TOC should reveal the actual contract between them and SABA. All useful stuff for future reference and pleadings.

it was Kidderminster Train station in Worcestershire.

Rob_tt

as expected the appeal to the AS was rejected. So I await letters demandng payment now....

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the above referenced Penalty Notice issued on .

The Railway Byelaws 2005 (“the Byelaws”), which regulate the use and parking of vehicles in railway station car

parks, permit ticketing. Under byelaw 14(3), a person using a railway station car park must pay the parking

charges which are levied by the operator. Further, it is stated in byelaw 14(4)(i) that the owner of a vehicle may be

liable to pay a penalty if it has been used, placed or left in contravention of byelaws 14(1) to (3).

The Appeals Service (AS) is not associated with the Parking Operator, or the Train Operating Company. AS

provide an independent service, which gives the recipient of a Penalty Notice the opportunity to further appeal.

The terms of use of the car park, as set out on the signage within the car park, state that you must purchase (and display) a valid ticket or permit and/or purchase a valid cashless parking session covering the duration of your stay. By entering the car park, you are agreeing to adhere to these terms of use.

The evidence provided confirms no valid purchase was allocated to your vehicle on the date in question and

therefore the Penalty has correctly been issued in this instance.

I acknowledge the points raised by yourself and this case has been fully reviewed. Being confident that the

Parking Operator has followed the correct procedure in the consideration of your first appeal, I can confirm that

their initial decision remains. AS’s decision is final, and the appeal is now closed with us. This does not prevent

you from pursuing your issue through other channels, such as the courts.

Payment of the full outstanding amount, as detailed in your Penalty Notice, must be received within 28 days of the

date of this letter. The Parking Operator reserves the right to pursue the full outstanding amount, plus any

additional associated costs, in accordance with their Terms and Conditions of parking. Full payment options are

detailed in this response

doubledotcom

A Byelaw 14 prosecution is for breaches in 14(1)–(3). Those offences are committed by the person in charge of the vehicle at the time. In a criminal case the prosecution must prove every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Identity of the offender is an essential element. If the driver is not identified, ANPR hits, DVLA keeper data, or generic CCTV that no one can recognise do not prove who was in charge beyond a reasonable doubt. 

There is also no byelaw duty like Road Traffic Act s.172 that compels a keeper to name the driver, so silence from the keeper does not fill the gap. Under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) there is no “default judgment” for non-reply; a conviction still requires evidence of identity. In open court, with no admissible identification, a no-case-to-answer submission should succeed.

Byelaw 14(4) is different. It says the owner (the person by whom the vehicle is kept) may be liable to pay the displayed penalty. That is an administrative liability to pay a set sum; it is not a criminal offence. It does not make the owner guilty of a 14(1)–(3) offence and cannot be used to convict the keeper when the driver is unknown.

Even if a prosecution of the actual driver succeeded, 14(4) does not create a separate criminal conviction for the owner; it is not an offence at all. It also cannot be bolted on after a criminal conviction to pursue someone else for a court-imposed fine.

In short: without proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, who was the person in charge, a Byelaw 14 prosecution should fail; and 14(4) does not turn the owner into a criminal offender.

Additional points for practical context:

• In a genuinely contested PN where the driver is unidentified and the keeper maintains their position, a conviction is exceptionally unlikely because identity cannot be proved to the criminal standard.

• The small number of TOC prosecutions often end in payment without challenge, which masks how weak unidentified-driver cases are once defended.

• For second-stage appeals on railway PNs, some TOCs recognise AS Appeals Service as their independent appeals body (IAB). POPLA is a private-land PCN body and, absent a clear TOC designation, has no binding jurisdiction over Byelaws PNs.

Rob_tt

doubledotcom said:

A Byelaw 14 prosecution is for breaches in 14(1)–(3). Those offences are committed by the person in charge of the vehicle at the time. In a criminal case the prosecution must prove every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Identity of the offender is an essential element. If the driver is not identified, ANPR hits, DVLA keeper data, or generic CCTV that no one can recognise do not prove who was in charge beyond a reasonable doubt. 

There is also no byelaw duty like Road Traffic Act s.172 that compels a keeper to name the driver, so silence from the keeper does not fill the gap. Under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) there is no “default judgment” for non-reply; a conviction still requires evidence of identity. In open court, with no admissible identification, a no-case-to-answer submission should succeed.

Byelaw 14(4) is different. It says the owner (the person by whom the vehicle is kept) may be liable to pay the displayed penalty. That is an administrative liability to pay a set sum; it is not a criminal offence. It does not make the owner guilty of a 14(1)–(3) offence and cannot be used to convict the keeper when the driver is unknown.

Even if a prosecution of the actual driver succeeded, 14(4) does not create a separate criminal conviction for the owner; it is not an offence at all. It also cannot be bolted on after a criminal conviction to pursue someone else for a court-imposed fine.

In short: without proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, who was the person in charge, a Byelaw 14 prosecution should fail; and 14(4) does not turn the owner into a criminal offender.

Additional points for practical context:

• In a genuinely contested PN where the driver is unidentified and the keeper maintains their position, a conviction is exceptionally unlikely because identity cannot be proved to the criminal standard.

• The small number of TOC prosecutions often end in payment without challenge, which masks how weak unidentified-driver cases are once defended.

• For second-stage appeals on railway PNs, some TOCs recognise AS Appeals Service as their independent appeals body (IAB). POPLA is a private-land PCN body and, absent a clear TOC designation, has no binding jurisdiction over Byelaws PNs.

I have already admitted I was the driver in my appeals. 

doubledotcom

I doubt this will go anywhere near a prosecution. Saba/ZZPS are likely to try and con you into paying it with the threat of civil litigation which they cannot do.

You should be stringing this out and not rushing to respond to anything. They must lay information before a magistrate within 6 months of the alleged breach.

I have sent an FoI request to West Midlands Rail Executive (WMRE) for a copy of the contract between West Midlands Railway (WMR) and Saba Park Services Ltd. WMR are, until next year, a private company and not subject to the FOIA. I have copied in the DfT and Network Rail to the FoI request.

I doubt that Saba have authority to actually prosecute a PN and would have to refer it back to the TOC to initiate any prosecution. There is absolutely nothing in it for Saba and once they realise that you are not low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who can be intimidated into paying up out of ignorance and fear, they are likely to give up.

Coupon-mad

Please could you screenshot the AS decision like in the linked thread. but cover the Assessor's name at the bottom (and your data).