Warning about a new ANPR TOLL on Warburton Bridge over Manchester Ship Canal managed by Excel

Car1980

"Byelaws under this article may provide for it to be an offence for a person to contravene, or to fail to comply with, a provision of the byelaws and for such a person to be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

Sounds like these time out after 6 months under the Mag Courts 1980 Act.

canuk_UK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82011386#Comment_82011386

Yes, but only for the criminal/byelaw offence route.

If MSCC/the undertaker wanted to prosecute someone for contravening the byelaws or failing to pay a toll without reasonable excuse, that would be a summary-only offence in the magistrates’ court. In the absence of any special extended time limit, that would normally have to be commenced within 6 months under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

However, that is not what the UTCN appears to threaten. The UTCN appears to threaten debt recovery/civil enforcement of the unpaid toll charge, not criminal prosecution. That means the 6-month prosecution limit does not make the UTCN disappear and would not, by itself, prevent them from trying a civil claim later.

The important distinction is this: prosecution and civil recovery are different routes. So if they later started waving around threats of magistrates’ court prosecution after that period had expired, that would be very questionable. But if they pursue the UTCN as a civil/statutory debt, the relevant limitation period is 6 years.

Car1980

With civil recovery they can only legally claim costs they can specifically prove. That's a lot of heavy lifting to trump up a £2 toll fee!

Sounds like they're trying out a £30 "PCN" that will presumably attract £70 on top.

ChirpyChicken

I suspect a manual process given the delays seen

canuk_UK

The OP needs to SAR the DVLA for a definitive answer. Just use the MIS1065 form here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69494c30888ddc41b48a5484/make-a-subject-access-request-to-dvla-form-mis1065.pdf

1505grandad

"Excel’s normal electronic DVLA access is through its KADOE contract, which is tied to private parking enforcement, ATA membership and parking-related data requests. This is not a parking charge. It is a statutory toll/Unpaid Toll Charge scheme."

Just checking - could the ppc argue that the following might cover the above?:-

https://kadoe.co.uk/dvladata/

Releasing information where fraud is suspected

• DVLA will release information to find the keeper of a vehicle that has driven off without paying for road, tunnel or bridge charges.
• Petrol stations and garages can find the vehicle keeper who has left without paying for fuel, or has paid for fuel or repairs dishonestly.
• Loss adjusters and insurance companies can obtain vehicle keeper information when they are investigating road traffic accidents and fraudulent theft claims.
• Information can help find a previous vehicle keeper, as part of an investigation into suspected vehicle ‘clocking’ offences under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Castle

But is it fraud given that you can pay online after the event.

canuk_UK

Yes, that wording may help them in principle, but it does not answer the real question.

The phrase about DVLA releasing keeper data where a vehicle has “driven off without paying for road, tunnel or bridge charges” is really a general “reasonable cause” example. It may be broad enough to cover a genuine unpaid bridge toll once the permitted payment period has expired.

However, Warburton is not a normal toll booth where someone has driven through a barrier and failed to pay at the point of use. It is a barrierless ANPR scheme where payment is invited later. So nobody has necessarily “driven off without paying” at the moment of crossing. The alleged non-payment only crystallises after the allowed post-payment period expires.

The key issue is still the DVLA route used. That wording may justify a proper non-parking reasonable-cause request, likely via a V888-style route or some bespoke toll arrangement. It does not automatically allow Excel to use its ordinary parking KADOE access for a statutory toll scheme.

So the question remains: when did Excel request the keeper data, what route did it use, what reason did it give DVLA, and what authority did it have from the undertaker? A DVLA SAR should expose that. If the request was made through a parking-related KADOE route for this non-parking toll scheme, that remains a serious data-use issue.