PE letter before action

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

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.

bazter's reply above is 100% the same argument as mine. I am only referring to lease/company cars where the RK can clearly & definitively prove with documentation they are not the 'keeper' just as a car rental company can. The argument cannot be extended to husband & wife or any other scenario where there the de facto keeper is established on an informal basis to be a different person to the RK. Adult children especially those that are still in full time education or have not left home quite often have 100% use of a car that is registered to a parent but there is no formal documentation to prove that.

Stroma

The problem Nigel is that a lba usually means a small claim. And the judges there are inconsistent to say the least. IMO if this can be dealt with popla it can be won without going to the small claims.

But all this is moot as the OP hasn't been back since posting so we don't have the full picture of what has happened and what the next step is.

nigelbb

Stroma wrote: »

The problem Nigel is that a lba usually means a small claim. And the judges there are inconsistent to say the least. IMO if this can be dealt with popla it can be won without going to the small claims.

Along with most other replies on this thread I wasn't referring to the OP's particular case but to the wider case where it's clear the legislation has been badly drafted in that it clearly differentiates between the RK & the keeper but then only has the special case for rental cars & not for lease cars or company/pool cars where the RK is not the keeper.