Substantial claim - Claim Form received - Saba - QDR -Harold Wood rail car park - Can you help??

kryten3000

One other thing - were these particulars sent in the post?  If so, how could they be signed today, 31st December?  Does QDR own a time machine?

ChirpyChicken

@kryten3000 these are not quite the same
They "appear" to be normal parking notices issued on TFL car parks. TFL being the statutory authority. They are not byelaw "tickets" issued under the usual byelaw 14( from my reading)

doubledotcom

kryten3000 said:

Yet another attempt by SABA to turn a byelaws contravention into a contractual breach.  Sadly the law changed last week so future cases cannot be defended on that point, but this one can.

Wrong! The PoFA charge does NOT affect TfL stations. The change ONLY affects land that is covered by Railway Byelaws. TfL land is not covered by Railway Byelaws but TfL byelaws. TfL are a traffic authority and are specifically covered in PoFA under paragraph 3(1)(b) and subsequently 3(2)(c).

Even for land that is covered by Railway Byelaws, the change is not retrospective.

Also, these are PCNs, not PNs.

doubledotcom

Regarding the forward dating of the detailed PoC, what matters is service within the CPR deadlines, not what date the claimant has typed on the PoC.

BettyBerty13

Happy New Year all. 
@Coupon-mad
@ChirpyChicken
@Car1980
we have found Saba follow up letter for 8th Oct if that is any help? 

BettyBerty13

and we have found a Moorside Legal letter which relates to these claims I believe.  I don't know which contravention this relates to though as there are no details on the letter. 

BettyBerty13

I have taken photos of the signage now.   This is the first sign as you enter the car park

BettyBerty13

and further signage 

BettyBerty13

the additional signage

Coupon-mad

BettyBerty13 said:

and further signage 

Happy New Year! Good to see a terms & conditions sign with zero terms & conditions.

  

BettyBerty13 said:

Particulars of Claim received today

particulars of contraventions

Coupon-mad said:

Oh good! Doomed pleadings.

They have said they are pursuing the Defendant under a law - POFA - that didn't apply to railway car parks (the POFA only changed last week).

They are not pursuing the driver(s) and the Defendant does not have to say who that might have been. However, this being a 4 figure claim, we strongly recommend you don't do this alone. ChirpyChicken has offered. Other regular posters who assist with cases include:

@bargepole

@troublemaker22

These greedy Claimants have also added EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY QUID for the exact same series of automated pre-action letter chain that the Supreme Court held in Beavis was already fully (easily) accounted for - and "had to be" within an £85 PCN.

And the 'old boys club' third parties in this sector all act on a no-win-no-fee basis, so SABA haven't incurred any such costs. No wonder the Tory Govt called out the added false fees as 'extorting money from motorists'.

Wakey wakey Labour Ministers. Your Options Assessment was hopelessly naive and plain wrong in terms of binding case law regarding recoverable sums in private parking. And the Labour Options Assessment ignored POFA Sch4 (maximum sum) and the Late Fees Regs (late fees were deemed by the CJC as not appropriate for consumer contracts) and it ignored the CRA 2015 (proportionality) and the DMCC Act, to boot (costs must be prominently shown at the outset).

BettyBerty13 said:

we have found Saba follow up letter for 8th Oct if that is any help? 

Seen that before! It's ZZPS' handiwork.

ZZPS: illegally demand £127 on NTK & £1.95 on the back = c£29 more than POFA or CoP allows. I have collated 4 matching examples:

#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

#4 SABA
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81674130/#Comment_81674130

It is above the sum stated on the signs and above the Code of Practice cap and above the POFA maximum (not that the POFA applies but IIRC, the BPA CoP said that non-POFA notices must follow the same 'rules'). And now they've added £70 per PCN for the SAME letter chain that the Supreme Court said was more than covered by the PCN already = long-running greed, which the MHCLG must stop this year.

I haven't read those threads recently but you might want to read them through. The SABA ones are likely similar to your case.