IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Adaptis Solutions Railway Byelaw s14
Comments
-
Not being the driver is a very powerful appeal point. IIRC byelaw 14 states it is the owner who is liable absent a driver fessing up.
If you are neither the owner or driver it leaves them up a creek.
Thanks Waamo. Yeah the owner becomes liable absent the driver being known, and I am the owner on the reg document, so would be a little bit risky. Have a look at my edit suggestion on last post.0 -
financerulez wrote: »Thanks Waamo. Yeah the owner becomes liable absent the driver being known, and I am the owner on the reg document, so would be a little bit risky. Have a look at my edit suggestion on last post.
No you are the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. It should say in big letters on the V5c that THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP.0 -
No you are the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. It should say in big letters on the V5c that THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP.
What is their in terms of proof of ownership? As I don't use the car, I don't have insurance docs that would state that, but I'm not sure what I would have that proves I'm not the owner. Are there not some car docs that state who owner is?0 -
I'm looking for the specific part of POFA 2012 (or other legislation) that states that having an independent appeals system is a requirement of anyone who accesses DVLA info. I'm sure I read that's the case. I want to lambast the DVLA for giving my info out, knowing that this would not be the case as it's a byelaw case, and POPLA won't hear it.0
-
financerulez wrote: »What is their in terms of proof of ownership? As I don't use the car, I don't have insurance docs that would state that, but I'm not sure what I would have that proves I'm not the owner. Are there not some car docs that state who owner is?
You do not have to prove you are not the owner. It is up to them to prove you are.0 -
financerulez wrote: »I'm looking for the specific part of POFA 2012 (or other legislation) that states that having an independent appeals system is a requirement of anyone who accesses DVLA info. I'm sure I read that's the case. I want to lambast the DVLA for giving my info out, knowing that this would not be the case as it's a byelaw case, and POPLA won't hear it.
only parking companies , ie the group of companies that are in the bpa and the ips
as stated earlier on , there are about 6 groups of people , credit , finance , insurance etc , that can get your info , however to get info for a parking offence you must be in the bpa/ipc
unless you are called indigo and can run rings round uk goverrment and the BPA <spit>Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
financerulez wrote: »I'm looking for the specific part of POFA 2012 (or other legislation) that states that having an independent appeals system is a requirement of anyone who accesses DVLA info. I'm sure I read that's the case. I want to lambast the DVLA for giving my info out, knowing that this would not be the case as it's a byelaw case, and POPLA won't hear it.
You won’t find it in PoFA.
More helpful might be the KADOE (Keeper of Vehicle at Date of an Event) contract between the DVLA and PPC.
Page 77, para 2.1 (b).
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf
As well as the ATA’s Code of Practice.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Currently drafting. Interesting reading KADOE contract. This is what their purpose is listed as:
B2. Purpose For Which Data Is Provided
B2.1. The DVLA shall provide each requested item of Data to the Customer via the KADOE Service for the Reasonable Cause of enabling the Customer to:
a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date); and
b) otherwise seek recovery from a driver of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice (where the vehicle was parked on private land in Scotland or Northern Ireland by that driver on a particular date, or where the Customer has chosen not to pursue, or is not in a position to pursue the vehicle keeper by utilising conditions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012).
Note both use the terms Parking Charges, capitalised to refer back to their definitions. This is defined as:
“Parking Charge” means:
(a) a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, arising under the terms of a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the land) between:
the driver and the owner or occupier of the land; or
a person authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; and
(b) a sum in the nature of damages arising as a result of trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on land, provided that adequate notice of the sum was given to the driver of the vehicle (when the vehicle was parked on the land).
Tell me where enforcement of byelaws is in that definition of a Parking Charge? There isn't even a mention of the word penalty. In terms of the "a person authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land", this still needs to be read with the preceding point which again refers to a contract that has already arisen. It also says enter into a contract with the driver, information they do not have and will not be able to get. Could they argue that a contract is formed when parking on the Railway land, in addition to the byelaws applying? This all looks very dodgy to me, maybe the DVLA are breaking their own KADOE contract?0 -
financerulez wrote: »Currently drafting. Interesting reading KADOE contract. This is what their purpose is listed as:
B2. Purpose For Which Data Is Provided
B2.1. The DVLA shall provide each requested item of Data to the Customer via the KADOE Service for the Reasonable Cause of enabling the Customer to:
a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date); and
b) otherwise seek recovery from a driver of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice (where the vehicle was parked on private land in Scotland or Northern Ireland by that driver on a particular date, or where the Customer has chosen not to pursue, or is not in a position to pursue the vehicle keeper by utilising conditions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012).
Note both use the terms Parking Charges, capitalised to refer back to their definitions. This is defined as:
!!!8220;Parking Charge!!!8221; means:
(a) a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, arising under the terms of a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the land) between:
the driver and the owner or occupier of the land; or
a person authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; and
(b) a sum in the nature of damages arising as a result of trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on land, provided that adequate notice of the sum was given to the driver of the vehicle (when the vehicle was parked on the land).
Tell me where enforcement of byelaws is in that definition of a Parking Charge? There isn't even a mention of the word penalty. In terms of the "a person authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land", this still needs to be read with the preceding point which again refers to a contract that has already arisen. It also says enter into a contract with the driver, information they do not have and will not be able to get. Could they argue that a contract is formed when parking on the Railway land, in addition to the byelaws applying? This all looks very dodgy to me, maybe the DVLA are breaking their own KADOE contract?
a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date);
22.12 If you reject an appeal you must:
!!!8226; tell the motorist how to make an appeal to IAS. This
includes providing a template !!!8216;notice of appeal!!!8217; form
or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an
appeal and a valid 10-digit verification code. Even if
the verification code is automatically printed on an
enclosed appeal form, it must still be in a prominent
position on the first page of the rejection letter.
!!!8226; give the motorist a reasonable amount of time to pay
the charge before restarting the collection process.
We recommend that you allow at least 35 days from
the date you rejected the challenge
with the threat of
Non-compliance with the Code will be dealt with and
monitored through a scheme of sanctions. We will
issue sanction points depending on the severity of the
non-compliance. If you reach twelve points on your
!!!8216;membership licence!!!8217; in any twelve month period, we may
refer you to the BPA Council for disciplinary action. The
referral may result in your membership with the AOS and
the BPA being suspended or terminated.
and
If we find there has been a failure to comply with the
Code, either during a complaint investigation or a
compliance audit, you must make appropriate changes to
your business operation to bring it into compliance. We
will write to you asking for the changes to be made. This
will be a formal request and we will give you a timescale
for you to make the changes and send us evidence that
you have done this. Depending on the nature and severity
of the alleged Code breach, we may issue suspended
Sanction Points and/or a formal letter of censure
there is your code of practice , clearly stating popla must be given
how can companies that are bpa use kodoe and not follow code of practice
and in your case , how can a non bpa/ipc company get info for a PARKING offence?Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards