Disabled Parking at Station SABA

he paid all three fines to a value of £185.85

That just about seals his fate in terms of trying to pull anything back from SABA (aka Indigo). They will most certainly respond by saying the penalty (as they are termed by them) was legitimately applied and your brother accepted liability by paying.

In most other cases, general run of the mill parking charges, I’d be saying, swallow it and learn from the experience, but this case is one of a particularly vulnerable person being preyed upon by venal predators.

Recover any money is probably unlikely but you could make SABA’s life uncomfortable by enlisting the help of your MP and any disability groups specialising in the conditions your brother has.

Also read this thread where some on has used an Equality and Human Rights Commission complaint template to hit a parking firm.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5987635

Ultimately you could sue for your money by issuing an initial Letter Before Claim (costs you nothing), followed if you wish by a MCOL Claim which will cost just £25. Unless SABA defend the case you will win a judgment in default. They may decide that the effort and cost in defending is too much, and return your money.

None of the above might work, but it does give SABA a bit of a kick!

Complain to your/your brother's MP. Contact local and national press.

The only way I can think he will get his money back is to start a court claim, citing breach of the Equality Act 2010 as the scammers did not make reasonable adjustments for someone with protected characteristics in accordance with the act.

Also complain to the landowner which may be Network Rail or the train operating company, again citing the EA 2010.

Just how low can these parking companies stoop? I think you should think about getting the press involved.

I imagine that these weren’t windscreen tickets, since your brother was supposed to phone up and register, and it happened 3 times, I guess they were Notices to Owner, sent by post? A typical Indigo one looks like this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hMB-lrd6FdDrAhDM4TzTvhBLEw8yGEC9/view
(see post 4 on this Pepipoo thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125339&hl=indigo )

Were your brother’s ones the same? If so, the parking company are not only in breach of the Equality Act. What makes it even worse is the number of fraudulent assertions in the Notice to Owner which mis-led your brother into believing that he was legally obliged to pay up.

He wasn’t. Nobody but the Court can impose a penalty for breach of the Byelaws - as confirmed by the DfT in this letter (bottom paragraph, first page): https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/311011/response/770331/attach/2/F0013227%20Follow%20Up%20Reply.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

It’s obvious when you think about it. Anyone accused of a criminal offence (which, anachronistically, parking in breach of the Railway Byelaws is) is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court. It’s the most fundamental principle of our criminal justice system: the famous “golden thread” (per Lord Sankey, Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462), enshrined in statute from Magna Carta through the Bill of Rights Act 1689 to the present day in Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights.

But Indigo like to drive a coach and horses through all that. They assert that Byelaw 14(4)(i) entitles them to impose a penalty on an as-yet innocent person. Of course it doesn’t. How can it? They are saying, in effect:

1. We accuse you of this offence;
2. We find our accusation proved;
3. We impose the following penalty and we’ll prosecute or clamp you if you don’t pay up;
4. We get to keep the proceeds.
And finally:
5a) We will decide your appeal.
b) A second-tier appeal may only be made to an appeal service selected by ourselves. And in case you are wondering: no, your appeal will not be decided in accordance with established law.

Talk about a kangaroo court! But the Notices look so official, and people naturally expect a major train company (and its agents) to act within the law in every way – so it doesn’t even occur to people they could be fraudulent.

In short: your brother was mis-led by the false assertions in the Notice to Owner - assuming it's the same as the one in the link. At the very least, he should be entitled to a full refund under the Consumer (Protection from Unfair Trading) Regs 2008 as amended. There is also the more serious matter of damages for fraud/deceit to consider - useful guidance given by Rix LJ in The Kriti Palm (2007) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 555 - see para 251 onwards - here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1601.html

To defraud a vulnerable person is utterly despicable. I hope you can fight back. At least let them be shamed by the media.