PE letter before action

zzzLazyDaisy

So picking up from that - if a company employee has a company car, and the company as the registered keeper receives a NtK, and replies with the name and address of the regular keeper - does this mean that if the employee receives a pcn from a camera operated car park (so this is the first they know about it) outside the 14 days, they can defend it on that basis? (Just trying to get my head round this).

Edit - I am assuming for these purposes that the wife/family of the employee with the company car is also permitted to drive the vehicle.

Coupon-mad

Yes you could use that as one appeal point but there are other points too.

zzzLazyDaisy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes you could use that as one appeal point but there are other points too.

Yes thanks, I think I;m getting up to speed on other appeal points, it was just that this is the first time I've come across this particular wrinkle :-)

Dx

Edit - in that case when responding to the NtK would it be better to refer to the employee with the company car as 'the regular driver' or (say) 'the nominated keeper' ?

Drinkuptheezider

Hi all I have just received a before action letter via rm signed for bit sly I think I haven't received nothing from them since jan but I am guilty so should I pay or not just very confused with it all now.

Stroma

Please create your own thread below
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

Coupon-mad

Drinkuptheezider wrote: »

Hi all I have just received a before action letter via rm signed for bit sly I think I haven't received nothing from them since jan but I am guilty so should I pay or not just very confused with it all now.

Oh...please read other LBA threads first, please not just a knee-jerk new thread without reading all the others from yesterday and the day before:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4692093

Please read the linked threads there first, you must respond to the LBA but it's already covered so many times on so many threads.

Coupon-mad

More opinions - on pepipoo this time - about replying to LBAs making it clear you are someone who is up for the fight:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80930

Newbies reading this - please just read other similar threads before starting a new one, it really helps if we don't have to type the same thing again and again when it's already here umpteen times.

See my signature for where to click to see all current threads; one click away.

HTH

bazster

It's really very, very simple. POFA Schedule 4:

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;

So the "keeper" is not necessarily the "registered keeper". How much plainer do you want it? Pretty easy to prove too I'd suggest, a letter from the owner of the vehicle (presumably the company) ought to do it.

It's even reinforced under the definition of "registered address":

“current address for service” means—
(a)in the case of the keeper, an address which is either—
(i)an address at which documents relating to civil proceedings could properly be served on the person concerned under Civil Procedure Rules; or
(ii)the keeper’s registered address (if there is one)

So even that makes allowance for the possibility that the keeper is not the "person" whose name is registered at DVLA.

And the rest of POFA is crystal clear: the NtK has to be sent to the keeper within 14 days. Not the registered keeper, the keeper. And, despite Stroma's incorrect assertions (and irrelevant quotations) there is nothing, but nothing, in POFA that offers the PPC a second bite at the cherry if they send the NtK to someone who is not the keeper. Flawed drafting? Maybe, but it doesn't matter: it's the law!

So, in this case, the long-and-the short of it is as follows:

1. No NtK was sent to the keeper.
2. They don't know who the keeper is, but even if the RK tells them, it's too late, they cannot get a NtK to him within 14 days.
3. And they don't know who the driver is, so they can't send a NtD.

This is my last word on the subject. If anyone still can't understand the simple-enough wording in POFA and the simple-enough logical conclusions which flow from it then I can't help any more. You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Guys_Dad

This is the only logical view that can be taken. I can't see how Nigel's could stand.

By my understanding of his posts and extrapolating, then if I bought a car in my name, but my wife always drove it and was its day-to-day keeper, then jointly we could time out any PPC communication by ignoring it.

Can't see that working somehow.

Stroma

Bazster tell you what then, you write out the defence of that on a court claim! If the RK is a company they could be liable if they are under pofa 2012, if like this case the RK has not communicated with the parking eye then liability stays with the RK.

The whole reason to send the keeper details is to try and get this through popla instead of the small claims! Basically though what you are saying under the act could be interpreted as that , it could equally be looked at that the RK hasn't done enough not to go to court.