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
-
yes taken to court be ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
and how much does it cost them and met/indigo/adaptis ?
a tangled web of decept , overlooked and blessed by our goverment !
strict rules were placed in the POFa 2012 , and this lot seem to just be sticking two fingers up at our goverment and the general publicSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
strict rules were placed in the POFa 2012 , and this lot seem to just be sticking two fingers up at our goverment and the general public
However, there is a way of getting your own back. Make a claim against them for harassment. stress, and perhaps accessing your DVLA details without due cause.
It is not for the timid as you may have to go against a legally trained adversary, but it is possible to make them pay for their hubris.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
strict rules were placed in the POFa 2012 , and this lot seem to just be sticking two fingers up at our goverment and the general public
However, there is a way of getting your own back. Make a claim against them for harassment. stress, and perhaps accessing your DVLA details without due cause.
It is not for the timid as you may have to go against a legally trained adversary, but it is possible to make them pay for their hubris.
Once the 6 months times out - that's the plan!0 -
Re your question about prosecuting the owner: for a person to be prosecuted he must have allegedly done something that is prohibited by law, or omitted to do something that is required by law. The act or omission must constitute an offence.
Byelaw 14/4/I is not a directive which can be disobeyed . It's just a statement which describes a possible state of affairs: "the owner may be liable" . You cannot breach a state of affairs - what conduct on the part of the owner could possibly constitute an offence?
A County Court might be able to decide whether the owner is liable or not liable, but that's not what the Magistrates are being asked. They're being asked if he's guilty or not guilty.0 -
Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »Re your question about prosecuting the owner: for a person to be prosecuted he must have allegedly done something that is prohibited by law, or omitted to do something that is required by law. The act or omission must constitute an offence.
Byelaw 14/4/I is not a directive which can be disobeyed . It's just a statement which describes a possible state of affairs: "the owner may be liable" . You cannot breach a state of affairs - what conduct on the part of the owner could possibly constitute an offence?
A County Court might be able to decide whether the owner is liable or not liable, but that's not what the Magistrates are being asked. They're being asked if he's guilty or not guilty.
That is excellent, and makes logical sense. Is there anything backing it up, e.g. legislation, legal definitions, an owner going to Mag Court?
Could the Magistrates not interpret it as the Owner is liable in the event that a driver cannot be found? And the Magistrate just sets the amount of fine? Yeah it doesn't sound solid does it? This needs clarification - if owners aren't liable either, it's another win against PPC's (and TOCs I guess) and needs posting on all railway byelaw threads. I have a feeling in the past though, Owners have been convicted in Mag Court. Will have another hunt through the threads.
"A County Court might be able to decide whether the owner is liable or not liable" - I agree it is wording more suited to civil law, but presumably as it's railway byelaws, a County Court could never be involved, and could not impose any penalties or liability? (Relevant to Railway byelaw land)0 -
very very few cases in mags , and they were not done via indigo ,Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
https://ibb.co/geNqfn
Another twist! Received this email today (thanks for the notice!) - looks like they realised that their cameras didn't work properly, or Dash have gone bust!
What do we think this means for my case? Presumably Dash can't pass my details over to TOC or new client operator? And perhaps they wouldn't want to now they've had their contract cancelled!0 -
you sir are a cad , your failure has led to adaptis being taken out and shot,
is this anyway to treat a fine upstanding british company!Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
financerulez wrote: »
Could the Magistrates not interpret it as the Owner is liable in the event that a driver cannot be found? And the Magistrate just sets the amount of fine? )
No. The Magistrates do not have the power to fine someone who has not been convicted of the offence.
Compare it with speeding offences. The Magistrates can't convict/fine the keeper for speeding just because they don't know who the driver was. They can only convict him for a totally separate offence under s172 RTA 1988 - failing to identify the driver. There is no equivalent set-up under the railway Byelaws. (There can't be - it's not provided for in the enabling legislation - see Transport Act 2000).
Besides which, the Byelaw says the owner may be liable for a penalty as displayed in the area. It does not say the owner may be liable for a penalty imposed by the Magistrates, which is a completely different thing.0 -
Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »No. The Magistrates do not have the power to fine someone who has not been convicted of the offence.
Compare it with speeding offences. The Magistrates can't convict/fine the keeper for speeding just because they don't know who the driver was. They can only convict him for a totally separate offence under s172 RTA 1988 - failing to identify the driver. There is no equivalent set-up under the railway Byelaws. (There can't be - it's not provided for in the enabling legislation - see Transport Act 2000).
Besides which, the Byelaw says the owner may be liable for a penalty as displayed in the area. It does not say the owner may be liable for a penalty imposed by the Magistrates, which is a completely different thing.
I think I agree. The identity of the driver should be known for any prosecution. What about civil law though? When they FOI'd the DfT they said that only a Court could enforce a penalty for breach of byelaws. They didn't technically say only a Court could decide who was in breach of byelaws.
"The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area."
Let's say they've layered a private contract over the byelaws, there's nothing stopping them doing this in my knowledge. Could they rely on absence of the driver's identity to move onto 14(4)(i) where they could then assert that a breach of contract has taken place and the Owner would then be liable to pay the penalty displayed in the area?
Would seem very harsh.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