Adaptis Solutions Railway Byelaw s14

twhitehousescat

in the words of David Dunsford (regarding another matter)

"we do not give out information to non ATA companies"

in this case , the worrying thing is that the DVLA STILL believe that Adaptis are BPA members .

financerulez

Johno100 wrote: »

Then you need to ask the DVLA what their policy is regarding requests received from a firm prior to them leaving an AOS but not processed until after they have left. That of course may be different if the firm left of their own volition as opposed to being suspended or thrown out.

That was my original question, and their answer was they would not release info, but as Adaptis are members they did in this case... Except they aren't members, so the DVLA have messed up!

Good point re why they left (and above twhitehousescat) - I'll try and get that info.

twhitehousescat

whilst you are chatting to the BPA , ask them HOW they informed the dvla of adaptis demise , method used

Johno100

financerulez wrote: »

That was my original question, and their answer was they would not release info, but as Adaptis are members they did in this case... Except they aren't members, so the DVLA have messed up!

I get it, not in an AOS then no info.

But did you ask and did they address the specific point I made in my previous post? I know how you want to interpret what they've told you but are you sure you have the full picture?

Handbags-at-dawn

It's scandalous that six weeks have passed and STILL the DVLA haven't realised Adaptis aren't members of an AOS.

Is our data safe in their hands? No it's not. They love to boast they have "stringent safeguards" in place but it's all just words. There are lots of examples but this one is absolutely blatant. Graeme Paton of the Times might be interested: Graeme.paton@thetimes.co.uk

financerulez

Johno100 wrote: »

I get it, not in an AOS then no info.

But did you ask and did they address the specific point I made in my previous post? I know how you want to interpret what they've told you but are you sure you have the full picture?

I wrote:

"2. The BPA have confirmed to me that Adaptis Parking Solutions also t/a PaybyPhone left the ATA scheme on 25 January 2018. (I believe that they have since lost their contract at the location of this alleged incident, and I do not believe they will be joining the IPC.) Your letter states that the application was processed on 01 February 2018, at which point the company was no longer part of an ATA scheme. Is it the DVLA policy to release data to private parking companies who are not part of an ATA scheme, if the alleged incident occurred when the private parking company was part of an ATA scheme?"

They replied as above, that "all car parking enforcement companies who require data from the DVLA must be members of an Approved Operator Scheme. Members of this scheme must adhere to a code of practice for the operation of their company. I have checked on the BPA list of members and Adaptis are still shown as members. We have not been notified that they have left the scheme."

I will ask them to clarify again, but I don't think they will go further than restating this.

financerulez

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

It's scandalous that six weeks have passed and STILL the DVLA haven't realised Adaptis aren't members of an AOS.

Is our data safe in their hands? No it's not. They love to boast they have "stringent safeguards" in place but it's all just words. There are lots of examples but this one is absolutely blatant. Graeme Paton of the Times might be interested: Graeme.paton@thetimes.co.uk

I'll drop him a line!

twhitehousescat

the BPA have made a $%^&D up , they have not notified the DVLA

and as a private company , what can you do

financerulez

Thought I'd update you all on this, as you may need a laugh on a Monday morning. Awaiting to hear back from the DVLA after I berated them, have sent a chase.

I've been in comms with Dash Parking, another name for Adaptis although they won't confirm it lol, who probably win the award for biggest morons I've come across.

I'm sending my responses on last day poss, but so far we're here:


1. I sent a fairly standard appeal, I'm RK, take it up with the driver, etc.

2. They sent this:
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Enforcement Notice.
As xxxx Train Station Car Park is an ANPR operated car park, we do not have details of the driver on the date of the offence. If a payment was not made for parking, a Parking Enforcement Notice will be sent to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in order to pay or provide the driver’s details.
Under the BPA (British Parking Association) Code of Practice, it states if the keeper does not reply within 28 days, or refuses to give enough details about the driver, under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 you are able to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge.
If you wish to provide further evidence or driver’s details in order to support your appeal, please respond within 7 working days. If no further correspondence has been received within the deadline set, the appeal will be rejected.
Thank you
Kind regards

3. I replied:
Thank you for your email. I will assume that you are Adaptis Solutions Ltd, who I received the notice to keeper from and who I sent my appeal to.
I am afraid there is little evidence or help I can provide, as I was around 50 miles away at the time. I have stated that I do not know who was driving, and this is causing me substantial stress.
You have stated that you are able to pursue the keeper using POFA 2012 Schedule 4, but please note s.3 of the Schedule, which clearly states that the Schedule (including s.4 keeper liability) does not apply on relevant land (including land subject to statutory control) meaning that POFA 2012 Sch. 4 does not apply on byelaw-governed land, as in this case. As this Schedule does not apply, liability does not pass to the Registered Keeper, me. As this was the reason you have supplied, and it is not valid, please now confirm that this matter is closed with regards to my involvement.
If you refuse to uphold this appeal, and now try to change the reasoning away from POFA 2012 Sch 4, then you will need to explain a) how I can be held liable, and b) why you mentioned POFA 2012 Sch. 4 in an attempt to try and make me pay for a charge I am not liable for. Should you suddenly change your reasoning I would like the opportunity to reply appealing to such.

4. At this point you would think they will say we made a mistake, actually it's byelaw 14(4)(i) blah blah... nope! They replied:
Thank you for your reply
We can confirm Govia Thameslink Limited a company registered in England and Wales in the Leaseholder of private land at xxxx Railway Station Car Park. Therefore this car park is private land, not governed land. B]!!![/B Adaptis Soutions entered an agreement with Govia for the provision of ANPR services.
The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.
Schedule 4 gives the registered keeper the choice of naming the driver at the time the parking rules were broken or paying the charge him or herself. Without this provision the enforcement of parking on private land could be unmanageable as both registered keepers and drivers could avoid liability and therefore disregard any parking conditions (Schedule 4 POFA 2012). B]We know, you morons.[/B
If you wish to provide further evidence or driver’s details in order to support your appeal, please respond within 7 working days. If no further correspondence has been received within the deadline set, the appeal will be rejected and the amount will be reduced B]Lol![/B to £60.00.
Thank you
Kind regards

6. You may notice that a) they clearly know nothing about the law, and b) apparently you get a discount for not contacting them haha. Anyway, I've replied:
You have not addressed the points raised in my previous email, and this is becoming extremely frustrating and causing me unnecessary distress. The land in question is clearly governed by byelaws, a statutory control, as all of Indigo's signs mention byelaws, and your notice to registered keeper alleged a byelaw had been breached. As the land is governed by byelaws, POFA 2012 Sch. 4 does not apply, and liability does not pass to the registered keeper. You must know this is the case as you state it in your email. This is extremely worrying, and it will be necessary to report this to the BPA, DVLA, and Trading Standards as you are wilfully lying to consumers in an attempt to make them pay penalties they may not be liable for.
You must now cancel this penalty notice to me, the registered keeper. If you refuse to cancel the notice please answer the following questions, in numbered replies addressing each point:
1. Do you accept that byelaws are in place at xxxx Train Station? Yes or no?
2. Do you accept POFA 2012 Sch 4 does not apply to byelaw governed land? (Please read all of section 3, it quite clearly sets out that it does not apply.) Yes or no?
3. Do you accept that POFA 2012 Sch 4 does not apply in this case, as byelaws are in place at xxxx Train Station, and POFA 2012 Sch 4 does not apply to byelaw governed land? Yes or no?
4. Do you allege a breach of contract has occurred? Yes or no?
5. By what specific legislation do you allege that I, the registered keeper, have any liability?
I look forward to receiving confirmation the penalty notice has been cancelled. If it is not, I will need a clear explanation as to how I, the registered keeper, can be liable when POFA 2012 Sch 4 does not apply, and I would like the opportunity to appeal to any such reasoning.

I will keep updating the thread occasionally in case anyone else gets an Adaptis NtK/fancies a laugh.

Fruitcake

How did Indigo get involved, or is that another name for Adaptis?