Adaptis Solutions Railway Byelaw s14

financerulez wrote: »

.... the proper process should be: TOC/agent gets DVLA data, TOC/agent somehow needs to prove keeper is driver/owner (CCTV?), TOC/agent then needs to bring a private prosecution to criminal court, TOC/agent then needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt keeper or identified person is driver/owner. All this needs to be done within 6 months.
.

That pretty well sums it up - except they can't prosecute the owner. It's not an offence to be the owner of a car that was parked in breach of the Byelaws.

Next quote from your thread (sorry, couldn't figure out how to do it):
" I would be interested to hear whether a Criminal Court would accept that a logical deduction is that the keeper is also the owner. I would think not, but I read on another forum, that a magistrate accepted this as their was no denial and simply asked the keeper if he was the owner, and he admitted he was as he could not lie under oath. Is a magistrate allowed to do this?

There is no presumption the registered keeper is the driver, and if there is no evidence who was driving then the Magistrates should acquit (tho sadly, miscarriages of justice are not unknown!). It's obviously best if the Defendant can go into the witness box and deny it (as, it seems, you can).

But if the Defendant is not in a position to deny it, he should not give evidence because once he is in the witness box he will simply be asked. Instead, he should leave it to the Prosecution to prove their case. He can then make a submission of no case to answer: i.e submit there is no evidence whatsoever that puts him behind the wheel; therefore the prosecution case, taken at its highest, is such that they cannot properly convict (ramming home the standard of proof - they would have to be sure.).


Next quote:
"Even if we conclude that the Operator does have that right to seek info from the DVLA, the DVLA should not be able to pass data through the KADOE scheme, for issues we've previously discussed."

DVLA don't care. People have been complaining about this for years but they just come back with things like (and I quote): "As the focus of the KADOE contract relates to disclosure of data, rather than specifics around the Byelaws, the Agency is content that there is reasonable cause to disclose vehicle keeper data in the circumstances." What???? And these are the guys who are going to ensure strict adherence to the new Code of Practice when the Bill becomes law. Yippee.


By the way, it''s interesting that Indigo have used Adaptis to send out this NtK. It's usually ZZPS. I'm guessing this must be for the ANPR car parks. Here's another one from a year ago - same TOC perhaps - GTR? http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5529009&highlight=adaptis&page=2#topofpage
Post 26 has a Dropbox link to their agreement with GTR.

pappa_golf wrote: »

as stated previously , several groups of companies can ask for data

credit services
finance
debt collection
parking Cos

however there are specific forms to fill in dependent of type of company

google v888 , you will see 3 different ones , v888/3 HAS to be used by parking cos

But surely that doesn't mean a finance company can use their access to set up a sideline as a car park operator.

financerulez wrote: »

Thanks Handbags - Why is this? It says Owner may be liable for penalties in the byelaws. I've read some theories that if the Owner isn't on railway land, the byelaws can't be applied because the original legislation only applies to railway land. Is that the reason? Do we know if this has ever been tested in practice?

The Byelaw says "The owner may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in the area". So the first thing to ask is: penalty imposed by whom? The point is, no-one apart from the Magistrates' Court can impose a penalty for breach of the Byelaws. Even the DfT has, albeit reluctantly, confirmed this - see the bottom paragraph of the first page of this letter: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/311011/response/770331/attach/2/F0013227%20Follow%20Up%20Reply.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

So what are these "penalties" that TOCs try to get people to pay? The only thing they can be is an offer to accept a sum of money in lieu of prosecution - a sort of out-of-court settlement (a bribe?). Indeed, Indigo's other debt collectors ZZPS,as well as the DVLA and BPA, describe them as "offers of resolution".

No one is obliged to accept an offer. It is certainly not an offence to reject it (despite what is falsely suggested on the car park signs). As Steve Clark of the BPA says: "there is no law anywhere that forces a motorist to accept the £100 charge". In short, no-one - whether owner, keeper or driver, is legally obliged to pay it.

When it comes to prosecution, offences under the relevant Byelaws (14/ 1-3) can only be committed by the "person in charge". There is no offence that the owner per se can be prosecuted for.