Adaptis Solutions Railway Byelaw s14

KeithP

financerulez wrote: »

If someone crashed into my car and drove off, would DVLA hand out the registered keeper to me?

Yes they would.

You pay the fee and send them a form:

request-information-from-dvla

waamo

financerulez wrote: »

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.

The byelaws state it is the train operating companies responsibility to prosecute byelaws offences. That gives them reasonable cause to access the DVLA database.

pappa_golf

financerulez wrote: »

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.

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

financerulez

waamo wrote: »

The byelaws state it is the train operating companies responsibility to prosecute byelaws offences. That gives them reasonable cause to access the DVLA database.

Ah that's a shame - I couldn't find that in the byelaws, where does it say?

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

the letter IS to the DVLA , followup will be dependent on there reply

waamo

financerulez wrote: »

Ah that's a shame - I couldn't find that in the byelaws, where does it say?

Throughout them it refers to the operator. Section 25 defines who the operator is.

financerulez

pappa_golf wrote: »

the letter IS to the DVLA , followup will be dependent on there reply

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

waamo wrote: »

Throughout them it refers to the operator. Section 25 defines who the operator is.

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

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