Not the Registered Keeper or Owner

grenjs

HO87 wrote: »

I'm also somewhat unclear as to why you would be so firmly placing your head in a noose - in making an appeal - when you can satisfy POFA and legally walk away from it?

We are both members of an owners club. He is aware of this situation. I have his permission to pass along his details to the PPC if necessary.

But that isn't the point. All correspondence from them so far has been aggressive. Demands here and demands there. I don't like being pushed around in such a way.

I spoke to them on the telephone and explained the situation. I was told I "HAD TO" write to them as "it is company policy". I personally couldn't give a s--t for their company policy. Their attitude has riled me.

If they had been a bit more polite, then I would have been more accommodating.

Sounds crazy and maybe it is.

Nodding_Donkey

Good for you fella. But I'd stop phoning them if I was you. Unless you record it and put it on Youtube for our entertainment

TheFlamingRed

I always love it when I hear about a Poster who will, on principle, make a PPC jump through numerous hoops for them to do anything. You're in a very unique position where you can prove that you were not the keeper on the day of the incident and are withholding the information the PPC wants. Good for you!

I am happily awaiting what you intend to tell them and what they will reply with. The Deep has found a very nice financial oppertunity for you to take. It will be interesting if they begin to try to Perdue you as registered keeper as they have not seen proof

I await with popcorn.

andy_foster

HO87 wrote: »

If you are to avoid keeper liability (accepting for the purposes of discussion that all other POFA (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) requirements have been met) then you have not provided, yourself, what POFA requires that you do - albeit that one might argue that you can't.

POFA requires that you supply the name and serviceable address of the driver if you are to avoid being held liable for the charge yourself. Providing that detail could only ever be to the best of your knowledge and belief in any event.

The POFA only enables the keeper to be held liable in certain circumstances. The OP was not the keeper (it seems arguable whether or not he was the registered keeper, but being the RK creates no more than a rebuttable presumption that he was the keeper).

Umkomaas

Good on you OP. It's great to see someone stand up to these people; often newbies are in fear and trembling of PPCs and their demands - more power to your elbow.

Can you tell us who the PPC is please, as we may be aware of other information you might be able to use, to provide them with additional hoops through which to jump (aka, wind the f***ers up!) .

HO87

andy_foster wrote: »

The POFA only enables the keeper to be held liable in certain circumstances. The OP was not the keeper (it seems arguable whether or not he was the registered keeper, but being the RK creates no more than a rebuttable presumption that he was the keeper).

Agreed. The fact remains that at the time the OP was the registered keeper at DVLA and although, it seems, he can rebut the presumption that he was the keeper (as opposed to being the RK) he still risks proceedings being issued under the keeper liability provisions I'd suggest - assuming that the NtK was POFA compliant and the request for driver details was properly made.

The OP is fully entitled to avail himself of the shelter POFA provides, in terms of non-disclosure, and provided he is aware of the potential risk then there is no issue. My concern here is that other posters with less cajones (not much required I agree) might find themselves caught up in the moment and "backed into a corner" they didn't appreciate was there.

We do not know who the PPC is but in the absence of information indicating that it is a minnow who has never issued proceedings then it would be wise to be cautious. We also know that the SCC is a lottery but few judges are going to look that favourably on someone who has the means to make "things go away" but driven by what might be interpreted as bloody-mindedness chooses not to.

The_Deep

I disagree. I do not think that the OP is being bloody minded here, he tried to phone the PPC to explain, they were rude and threatening. I am sure that no judge would blame him if he broke off contact

Also, it seems that they have lied to him in saying that they were unable to re-apply to DVLA.

bazster

Far too much pu55yfooting around in my opinion. The OP was not the keeper and can prove it. Obviously on good terms with the buyer so could even get a witness statement from him to the effect that he purchased the vehicle on such-and-such a date. If it were me my position would remain as per my earlier post: I'd tell them to FRO.

grenjs

andy_foster wrote: »

The POFA only enables the keeper to be held liable in certain circumstances. The OP was not the keeper (it seems arguable whether or not he was the registered keeper, but being the RK creates no more than a rebuttable presumption that he was the keeper).

I can assure you 100% that at the time, I was not the registered owner or keeper. That title had been signed over to the new owner and keeper 24 hours previously. He as in fact on his way home when this happened.

I am waiting the confirmation notice from the DVLA where this can be proved beyond doubt.

HO87

The point you may well be missing is that at the time the PPC made their check of DVLA records you were the registered keeper and given that DVLA records only record the date of transfer of vehicles to new owners, and not the time and date it is still going to fall to you to show otherwise. On that basis I fail to see how their records are going to "prove beyond doubt."

Your assumption is, with respect, much the same as those who find themselves in court based on the erroneous assumption that it is for the PPC to prove who was driving at the time of a so-called contravention when the PPC can quite properly rely on the presumption that it is likely, on the balance of probability, that the keeper was also the driver. Many, sadly, have come unstuck at that point.

Making a PPC jump through hoops is all well and good but, as I said previously, no judge is going to look favourably on you where you have the means to dispose of the matter quickly and easily but choose not to do so.

Supplying the name of the new owner and guiding them, with our help, in making the necessary appeals, and winning, is far more productive - and costs the PPC into the bargain.