Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 7th Feb 18, 5:24 AM
    • 36Posts
    • 37Thanks
    financerulez
    Adaptis Solutions Railway Byelaw s14
    • #1
    • 7th Feb 18, 5:24 AM
    Adaptis Solutions Railway Byelaw s14 7th Feb 18 at 5:24 AM
    Hi all

    I'm the keeper of a vehicle that has received an enforcement notice through the post. The company is Adaptis Solutions Ltd. Have searched the forum for them, but there's not a huge amount about them. Their website doesn't work, and they aren't on either of the BPA or IPC lists as far as I can see. They have traced me as keeper of the vehicle through the DVLA though, so I thought that meant they had to belong to one of those organisations.

    As keeper, I've received this notice asking for £60 or £100 if not paid within 14 days. Whoever drove the car that day either forgot to pay for parking through the dash app, did pay through the app and there's been a mistake in the system somewhere, or the dash app wasn't working as it often isn't. From reading the forums, it seems the reason is largely irrelevant.

    Anyway, it's an enforcement notice to the keeper, for a breach of the car park terms in accordance with Railway Byelaw s.14 Nonpayment of parking fee. Have done some reading and understand that they won't be able to enforce this as only the TOC can enforce a byelaw breach, and that must be within 6 months. With that in mind I have a few more questions:
    1. If I appeal, will Adaptis not just pass my info over to the TOC, especially if I let on that I know the law in this area?
    2. It seems to me there are a variety of data protection violations. These are well summarised here: parking cowboys .co.uk/2017-01-railway-byelaws-data-protection-act/
    3. How do the DVLA even justify releasing the information to Adaptis is the first place? DVLA must know the law, and if they know that only the TOC can enforce byelaws, why are they giving data out to non-TOC companies?

    My aim is to run down the clock on the 6 months. My first port of call seems to be to launch an appeal with Adaptis after around 25 days. I can ask for a POPLA number, but if they don't belong to either association, will they give me one? I've also heard recently POPLA have stopped hearing cases now? Surely there has to be some form of independent panel or ADR? What will my steps following an internal appeal be, if they aren't association members?

    I've read around a bit, and the newbies thread, and searched Adaptis etc, but as there's not much on them and I can't find them on the lists, and POPLA seems to be in a volatile period, would love some help and advice! Will post draft replies and timeframes on here before acting I think!

    Thanks all!
Page 3
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 8th Feb 18, 4:59 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    financerulez
    This letter to the DVLA is getting very long. Maybe it will inspire them to rethink their policy, but I won't hold my breath. Oh well at least every letter/complaint helps!

    Interesting line I'm now trying to get my head round:

    Clearly PPC's shouldn't be using DVLA to get data for byelaw governed land, for the numerous reasons already established, e.g. no reasonable cause, no valid contract, breach of ATA guidelines, etc.
    What I'm interested in is whether a TOC should have the right to get data? I know there's a theory that as they aren't ATA approved, they can't do it, but consider theoretically for a moment, what would allow them that information?

    They will not be the ones ever receiving the penalty (that will be the Court). I suppose they are akin to victims in a criminal prosecution, does anyone know any process into how criminal law works in relation to victims and identifying offenders? If someone assaults me, as far as I know, I'm not entitled to gather his personal data just from this. If someone crashed into my car and drove off, would DVLA hand out the registered keeper to me? I would think no, but I don't know, surely it would be a matter for the police to deal with?

    As byelaws are criminal offences, I'm of the opinion that it should only be the police who can access the data (if they wanted to pursue), and not even the TOCs / landowners? Would love to hear some further opinions on that.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Feb 18, 5:06 PM
    • 5,624 Posts
    • 4,316 Thanks
    KeithP
    If someone crashed into my car and drove off, would DVLA hand out the registered keeper to me?
    Originally posted by financerulez
    Yes they would.

    You pay the fee and send them a form:

    .
    • waamo
    • By waamo 8th Feb 18, 5:09 PM
    • 2,610 Posts
    • 3,205 Thanks
    waamo
    This letter to the DVLA is getting very long. Maybe it will inspire them to rethink their policy, but I won't hold my breath. Oh well at least every letter/complaint helps!

    Interesting line I'm now trying to get my head round:

    Clearly PPC's shouldn't be using DVLA to get data for byelaw governed land, for the numerous reasons already established, e.g. no reasonable cause, no valid contract, breach of ATA guidelines, etc.
    What I'm interested in is whether a TOC should have the right to get data? I know there's a theory that as they aren't ATA approved, they can't do it, but consider theoretically for a moment, what would allow them that information?

    They will not be the ones ever receiving the penalty (that will be the Court). I suppose they are akin to victims in a criminal prosecution, does anyone know any process into how criminal law works in relation to victims and identifying offenders? If someone assaults me, as far as I know, I'm not entitled to gather his personal data just from this. If someone crashed into my car and drove off, would DVLA hand out the registered keeper to me? I would think no, but I don't know, surely it would be a matter for the police to deal with?

    As byelaws are criminal offences, I'm of the opinion that it should only be the police who can access the data (if they wanted to pursue), and not even the TOCs / landowners? Would love to hear some further opinions on that.
    Originally posted by financerulez
    The byelaws state it is the train operating companies responsibility to prosecute byelaws offences. That gives them reasonable cause to access the DVLA database.
    This space for hire.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 8th Feb 18, 5:11 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,278 Thanks
    pappa golf
    This letter to the DVLA is getting very long. Maybe it will inspire them to rethink their policy, but I won't hold my breath. Oh well at least every letter/complaint helps!

    Interesting line I'm now trying to get my head round:

    Clearly PPC's shouldn't be using DVLA to get data for byelaw governed land, for the numerous reasons already established, e.g. no reasonable cause, no valid contract, breach of ATA guidelines, etc.
    What I'm interested in is whether a TOC should have the right to get data? I know there's a theory that as they aren't ATA approved, they can't do it, but consider theoretically for a moment, what would allow them that information?

    They will not be the ones ever receiving the penalty (that will be the Court). I suppose they are akin to victims in a criminal prosecution, does anyone know any process into how criminal law works in relation to victims and identifying offenders? If someone assaults me, as far as I know, I'm not entitled to gather his personal data just from this. If someone crashed into my car and drove off, would DVLA hand out the registered keeper to me? I would think no, but I don't know, surely it would be a matter for the police to deal with?

    As byelaws are criminal offences, I'm of the opinion that it should only be the police who can access the data (if they wanted to pursue), and not even the TOCs / landowners? Would love to hear some further opinions on that.
    Originally posted by financerulez

    stop thinking to hard

    ONLY REPEAT ONLY companies registed with the DVLA as being members of the BPA/IPC can ask for details in a case cof PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND

    toc can ask for details , so can I , but we all have to use the correct forms!

    send this , I have added a couple of extra lines to it

    just fill your VRN and dates (a few before and a few after"

    Example Letter

    [Your Address]

    DVLA Vehicle Record Enquiries section

    Longview Road

    Morriston

    Swansea

    SA99 1AJ

    Dear Sirs

    Re: VRM AB12 XYZ

    As the Registered Keeper of the above VRM could you advise who has accessed my personal details with regards to this marque, how often and when did the DVLA send the keeper details out. also by what method (form) and reason. Please advise the information with regards to events between xx/xx/xx/ and xx/xx/xx.

    I understand there is no charge for this information and look forward to your speedy reply.

    Yours faithfully
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 8th Feb 18, 5:49 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    financerulez
    The byelaws state it is the train operating companies responsibility to prosecute byelaws offences. That gives them reasonable cause to access the DVLA database.
    Originally posted by waamo
    Ah that's a shame - I couldn't find that in the byelaws, where does it say?
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 8th Feb 18, 5:50 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    financerulez
    Will do Pappa Golf - want to hit the DVLA afterwards though!

    Are they likely to reply faster if I email them? There is that email for David Dunford - should I use that?
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 8th Feb 18, 5:52 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,278 Thanks
    pappa golf
    the letter IS to the DVLA , followup will be dependent on there reply
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • waamo
    • By waamo 8th Feb 18, 5:59 PM
    • 2,610 Posts
    • 3,205 Thanks
    waamo
    Ah that's a shame - I couldn't find that in the byelaws, where does it say?
    Originally posted by financerulez
    Throughout them it refers to the operator. Section 25 defines who the operator is.
    This space for hire.
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 9th Feb 18, 10:36 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    financerulez
    the letter IS to the DVLA , followup will be dependent on there reply
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Hi Pappa, yeah I know - I'm fairly certain they will say it was Indigo as operator of the car park. Can I use the email, or does it need to be the physical letter?
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 9th Feb 18, 11:14 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    financerulez
    Throughout them it refers to the operator. Section 25 defines who the operator is.
    Originally posted by waamo
    You're right, I think I agree the Operator, and then also authorised person have the right to get the DVLA data. Which also in theory means any of these companies have the right to launch a criminal trial against the offender.

    I obviously don't think they should be using KADOE, but if they accessed non-electronically, then 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.

    As you all say this is a difficult course for them, but not impossible. In most situations (mine is a weird one) I would be interested to hear whether these companies are likely to have CCTV, and 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?

    24(3) also refers to agents needing to identify themselves as authorised people. The generic penalty notice from Adaptis does no such thing, it doesn't even contain a company number or address. You wouldn't know this wasn't some sort of fraud/scam letter. The DVLA must act on this information, because they're not following the byelaws.

    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.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Feb 18, 11:50 AM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,278 Thanks
    pappa golf
    stop thing so hard

    the bylaw situalion is a mere fraction of all tickets issued

    no private company is going to take a private prosecution out , WHY , what does he gain?

    plus , a private prosecution for a bylaw offence?

    just send that letter and watch the can of worms explode

    and remember in this game its all smoke n mirrors designed to worry you (as it has) into paying up after a 50p templated letter
    Last edited by pappa golf; 09-02-2018 at 11:52 AM.
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 9th Feb 18, 1:56 PM
    • 70 Posts
    • 132 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    .... 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.
    .
    Originally posted by financerulez
    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.
    Last edited by Handbags-at-dawn; 09-02-2018 at 1:59 PM.
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 12th Feb 18, 9:35 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    financerulez
    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.
    Originally posted by Handbags-at-dawn

    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?
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 12th Feb 18, 9:46 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    financerulez
    Update: I have emailed the DVLA asking for the info that PG suggested, will wait on hearing from them.

    Here is a washed copy of the letter I received:

    https://ibb.co/jSkJWS
    https://ibb.co/bRRsrS

    Choose which errors you fancy - anything from Keeper not being responsible, this being a Criminal matter not enforceable through County Court, to the fact that they aren't on the BPA membership list, to the fact they say they will refer to POPLA.

    Will prepare a reply to send on day 26/27, and post on here before sending!
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 12th Feb 18, 9:57 AM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,278 Thanks
    pappa golf
    Update: I have emailed the DVLA asking for the info that PG suggested, will wait on hearing from them.

    Here is a washed copy of the letter I received:

    https://ibb.co/jSkJWS
    https://ibb.co/bRRsrS

    Choose which errors you fancy - anything from Keeper not being responsible, this being a Criminal matter not enforceable through County Court, to the fact that they aren't on the BPA membership list, to the fact they say they will refer to POPLA.

    Will prepare a reply to send on day 26/27, and post on here before sending!
    Originally posted by financerulez
    to a non ATA COMPANY?

    TO A COMPANY THAT HAS NOT INCLUDED ALL ITS DETAILS (COMPANY NUMBER)?
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 12th Feb 18, 10:29 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    financerulez
    to a non ATA COMPANY?
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Assuming those membership lists do not update to include Adaptis, do I have a valid claim for a DPA breach? Can't be sure without reply from DVLA, but I think Indigo will have accessed my data and passed it to Adaptis who as you say are not an ATA company. Or are they allowed to pass data to non-registered sub-contractors? Noticed ZZPS are ATA registered who they've used previously, but not Adaptis.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 12th Feb 18, 10:36 AM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,278 Thanks
    pappa golf
    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
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 12th Feb 18, 10:55 AM
    • 3,503 Posts
    • 3,929 Thanks
    Johno100
    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
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    But surely that doesn't mean a finance company can use their access to set up a sideline as a car park operator.
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 12th Feb 18, 10:57 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    financerulez
    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
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Oh yeah - thanks! Guess I will have to wait for the DVLA response then, before being able to bring these points in. If for example it was accessed through KADOE by say Indigo, who are they allowed to pass my data to? Not the TOC as confirmed by the FOI request, but some sub-contractors/debt collectors seem to have been allowed in the past, e.g. ZZPS. Ignore the smaller breaches like no popla, bad signage, etc. Do these sub-contractors needs to be ATA registered? Ie if Indigo retrieved data through KADOE and passed it to Adaptis who aren't ATA registered (despite their letter saying they are) does an automatic breach occur because Adaptis actually aren't ATA registered?
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 12th Feb 18, 11:00 AM
    • 70 Posts
    • 132 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    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?
    Originally posted by financerulez
    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_passthro ugh=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.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

877Posts Today

7,325Users online

Martin's Twitter