Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 7th Feb 18, 5:24 AM
    • 103Posts
    • 187Thanks
    financerulez
    Adaptis Solutions Railway Byelaw s14
    • #1
    • 7th Feb 18, 5:24 AM
    Adaptis Solutions Railway Byelaw s14 7th Feb 18 at 5:24 AM
    Hi all

    I'm the keeper of a vehicle that has received an enforcement notice through the post. The company is Adaptis Solutions Ltd. Have searched the forum for them, but there's not a huge amount about them. Their website doesn't work, and they aren't on either of the BPA or IPC lists as far as I can see. They have traced me as keeper of the vehicle through the DVLA though, so I thought that meant they had to belong to one of those organisations.

    As keeper, I've received this notice asking for 60 or 100 if not paid within 14 days. Whoever drove the car that day either forgot to pay for parking through the dash app, did pay through the app and there's been a mistake in the system somewhere, or the dash app wasn't working as it often isn't. From reading the forums, it seems the reason is largely irrelevant.

    Anyway, it's an enforcement notice to the keeper, for a breach of the car park terms in accordance with Railway Byelaw s.14 Nonpayment of parking fee. Have done some reading and understand that they won't be able to enforce this as only the TOC can enforce a byelaw breach, and that must be within 6 months. With that in mind I have a few more questions:
    1. If I appeal, will Adaptis not just pass my info over to the TOC, especially if I let on that I know the law in this area?
    2. It seems to me there are a variety of data protection violations. These are well summarised here: parking cowboys .co.uk/2017-01-railway-byelaws-data-protection-act/
    3. How do the DVLA even justify releasing the information to Adaptis is the first place? DVLA must know the law, and if they know that only the TOC can enforce byelaws, why are they giving data out to non-TOC companies?

    My aim is to run down the clock on the 6 months. My first port of call seems to be to launch an appeal with Adaptis after around 25 days. I can ask for a POPLA number, but if they don't belong to either association, will they give me one? I've also heard recently POPLA have stopped hearing cases now? Surely there has to be some form of independent panel or ADR? What will my steps following an internal appeal be, if they aren't association members?

    I've read around a bit, and the newbies thread, and searched Adaptis etc, but as there's not much on them and I can't find them on the lists, and POPLA seems to be in a volatile period, would love some help and advice! Will post draft replies and timeframes on here before acting I think!

    Thanks all!
Page 4
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 12th Feb 18, 12:11 PM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez


    The Byelaw says "The owner may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in the area". So the first thing to ask is: penalty imposed by whom? The point is, no-one apart from the Magistrates' Court can impose a penalty for breach of the Byelaws. Even the DfT has, albeit reluctantly, confirmed this - see the bottom paragraph of the first page of this letter: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/311011/response/770331/attach/2/F0013227%20Follow%20Up%20Reply.pdf?cookie_passthro ugh=1
    Originally posted by Handbags-at-dawn

    So what are these "penalties" that TOCs try to get people to pay? The only thing they can be is an offer to accept a sum of money in lieu of prosecution - a sort of out-of-court settlement (a bribe?). Indeed, Indigo's other debt collectors ZZPS,as well as the DVLA and BPA, describe them as "offers of resolution".

    No one is obliged to accept an offer. It is certainly not an offence to reject it (despite what is falsely suggested on the car park signs). As Steve Clark of the BPA says: "there is no law anywhere that forces a motorist to accept the 100 charge". In short, no-one - whether owner, keeper or driver, is legally obliged to pay it.

    When it comes to prosecution, offences under the relevant Byelaws (14/ 1-3) can only be committed by the "person in charge". There is no offence that the owner per se can be prosecuted for.
    Originally posted by Handbags-at-dawn


    Do we have any confirmation from Dft / any Court cases for that reasoning? Ie has any Owner (not driver) been prosecuted in Mag Court?

    14(4) In England and Wales
    (i) 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.

    24. Enforcement
    (1) Offence and level of fines
    Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

    I agree the Owner could not be prosecuted for 14(1)-(3). But there is no reference to persons in charge in 14(4). Could they not be brought to Magistrates under this offence, for the Magistrate to decide on the meaning of "may" and whether the Owner should be held liable? Ie TOC cannot track driver. Assumption that TOC finds out who Owner is somehow. TOC takes Owner to Mag Court as they may have liability to pay a penalty as displayed in that area (1000). Mag then decides if Owner has liability and imposes said fine.

    The 'may be liable" is the difficulty, and we have no criteria to judge on whether the Owner has liability or not. Is there any FOI request I could make to find out? Don't think so. I could FOI how many cases for owner liability in the case of bylaw 14 breaches have gone to Mag Court. I have a feeling it may be 0 lol.

    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 12th Feb 18, 12:32 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    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 public
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Feb 18, 1:05 PM
    • 9,493 Posts
    • 9,252 Thanks
    The Deep
    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.
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 12th Feb 18, 1:26 PM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez
    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.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    Once the 6 months times out - that's the plan!
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 12th Feb 18, 2:18 PM
    • 116 Posts
    • 247 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    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.
    Last edited by Handbags-at-dawn; 12-02-2018 at 2:41 PM.
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 12th Feb 18, 5:18 PM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez
    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.
    Originally posted by Handbags-at-dawn
    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)
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 12th Feb 18, 5:30 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    very very few cases in mags , and they were not done via indigo ,
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 13th Feb 18, 8:36 AM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez
    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!
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 13th Feb 18, 9:20 AM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    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 crapita
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 13th Feb 18, 11:56 AM
    • 116 Posts
    • 247 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn

    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? )
    Originally posted by financerulez
    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.
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 13th Feb 18, 12:56 PM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez
    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.
    Originally posted by Handbags-at-dawn
    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.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 13th Feb 18, 1:03 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    please stop overthinking

    you can see its smoke and mirrors that a larger percentage of people would simply pay up

    your letter , with no company number and a pathetic website is no better than the type of effort a nigerian scammer would use

    await s response from the DVLA before proceeding
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Feb 18, 1:16 PM
    • 9,493 Posts
    • 9,252 Thanks
    The Deep
    please stop overthinking


    Indeed, this is a scam, Parliament are on to it. 72 posts so far, why? Why not just ignore or play letter ping pong. You are flogging a dead parrot.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 13th Feb 18, 1:29 PM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez
    please stop overthinking


    Indeed, this is a scam, Parliament are on to it. 72 posts so far, why? Why not just ignore or play letter ping pong. You are flogging a dead parrot.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    I'm just trying to gain clarity around the specifics of the law. Will be playing letter ping pong to deal with this case, but for future knowledge it's good to know what advice to give re owner liability (and why it's correct).
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 13th Feb 18, 1:58 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    there is NO clarity regarding this , dvla , bpa etc accepted it UNTILL a complaint was made (several yrs ago) since then the DVLA and the goverment have just been going La la la to the public

    WHY should they &iss off large companies that spend money with them

    there is NO clarity !!!


    <full stop>
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 13th Feb 18, 7:57 PM
    • 116 Posts
    • 247 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    there is NO clarity regarding this , dvla , bpa etc accepted it UNTILL a complaint was made (several yrs ago) since then the DVLA and the goverment have just been going La la la to the public
    <full stop>
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Exactly. A year ago the BPA , DfT, DVLA and et al got together to discuss what to do about enforcement on Byelaws land. The DfT agreed to produce a "clarification statement". A decent lawyer wouldn't take more than a couple of days to do that - and here we are over a year later and still nothing.

    I guess it's because the true position is extremely embarrassing. Everyone naturally expects legislation to have some sort of meaning, but Byelaw 14/4/I is in fact of no legal effect whatsoever. It seems it was originally intended to pave the way for an "alternative route to prosecution" (as apparently stated in a consultation prior to the Byelaws' launch) - an offer to pay a fixed penalty in lieu of prosecution, which the driver can accept or reject same as for speeding.

    But it never got off the ground. To start with the use of the word liable is wrong as no-one is legally obliged to accept an offer; and there are none of the necessary accompanying regulations for example, there is nothing to say that if you pay the penalty you will not still be prosecuted. Moreover a mere Byelaw would require authorisation from the top ie Parliament to set up a scheme like this. It hasn't got it.

    So "may" remains "may". But the DfT have allowed TOCs to bamboozle people with this Byelaw for years.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 13th Feb 18, 8:02 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    and will continue , you sometimes wonder if ministers have shares in indigo

    after the wales fiasco and the lack of appeal I think we know the ANSWER
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 19th Feb 18, 3:06 AM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez
    UPDATE

    And a confusing one at that. DVLA data accessed via PayByPhone / Adaptis Solutions Limited using V888/3. PayByPhone are a subsidiary of VW Financial Services who were mentioned earlier in the thread.

    But from my understanding V888/3 is for use by parking companies (not VW Financial Services) and I thought it required membership of an ATA? I can't see Adaptis Solutions, PayByPhone, or VWFS listed on the BPA website (nor the IPC, although their letter implies they will be BPA). Does the manual form not require this then?

    Note they also stated the reasonable cause was a breach of car parking terms and conditions, not byelaw enforcement, but as you can see from their letter (earlier in thread) they mentioned the byelaws and refer to it as a penalty charge.
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 19th Feb 18, 8:57 AM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez
    UPDATE 2

    So the BPA just replied saying they aren't members - they left the membership on 25th Jan 2018 - a few days after my incident lol, very annoying!
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 19th Feb 18, 9:05 AM
    • 3,761 Posts
    • 4,423 Thanks
    Johno100
    UPDATE 2

    So the BPA just replied saying they aren't members - they left the membership on 25th Jan 2018 - a few days after my incident lol, very annoying!
    Originally posted by financerulez
    But is that before or after they requested your details?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

222Posts Today

2,010Users online

Martin's Twitter