Not the Registered Keeper or Owner

bazster

esmerobbo wrote: »

When does the "Keeper" status change? On a V5c I have here is states I acquired
the vehicle on 24-10-12 but the Docref is 30-10-12

It's not relevant. For PoFA purposes it's the de facto keeper that matters, not the registered keeper, and proof of having sold the vehicle is pretty compelling proof that the OP was no longer the de facto keeper regardless of what dates DVLA has.

HO87

Although I am not sure I am included in The Deep's comment but my recommendation has absolutely nothing to do with helping out the PPC and everything with suggesting that the OP helps themselves out.

We do not know which PPC this involves and we can all suggest those it is less wise to tangle with without being aware of the risks whereas there are those who would simply walk away as this fell into the "too difficult" bracket. My concerns are, as I made clear in my initial post, primarily that the OP is aware of the potential risks he runs and, hopefully, to give other posters who alight on this thread in the future and are encouraged to try the same, some measure of caution.

Whether the OP was the de facto keeper at the time the PPC made the enquiry of DVLA - and it would seem that he was not - is irrelevant. There is a presumption (albeit rebuttable) that the registered keeper is also the keeper for the purpose of POFA. The problem is that the OP has not rebutted that presumption he has simply denied it and left it at that. The PPC has evidence - by way of the DVLA information - upon which they are entitled to base a case and is no more evidence than obtains the majority of default judgments and even "wins" in defended cases where defendants fondly imagine that demanding that the PPC "prove" their case is sufficient to defeat them.

Were the PPC to issue proceedings and were the OP to maintain his current stance then he stands a very good chance of losing and even if he were to succeed - by adducing his evidence of rebuttal (assuming that he then has it) - then his chances of obtaining costs are likely to be nil. Indeed the PPC might effectively argue that in pushing matters to court that the OP has acted unreasonably and should therefore be liable for their costs. I think that is described as a pyrrhic victory.

Being offended by the tone of the PPC's demands and withholding information that is within their power to give certainly isn't going to win the OP friends at court unless their tone is so gross that a judge agrees and based on what I have seen previously I think that is unlikely.

jkdd77

HO87 wrote: »

Although I am not sure I am included in The Deep's comment but my recommendation has absolutely nothing to do with helping out the PPC and everything with suggesting that the OP helps themselves out.

We do not know which PPC this involves and we can all suggest those it is less wise to tangle with without being aware of the risks whereas there are those who would simply walk away as this fell into the "too difficult" bracket. My concerns are, as I made clear in my initial post, primarily that the OP is aware of the potential risks he runs and, hopefully, to give other posters who alight on this thread in the future and are encouraged to try the same, some measure of caution.

Whether the OP was the de facto keeper at the time the PPC made the enquiry of DVLA - and it would seem that he was not - is irrelevant. There is a presumption (albeit rebuttable) that the registered keeper is also the keeper for the purpose of POFA. The problem is that the OP has not rebutted that presumption he has simply denied it and left it at that. The PPC has evidence - by way of the DVLA information - upon which they are entitled to base a case and is no more evidence than obtains the majority of default judgments and even "wins" in defended cases where defendants fondly imagine that demanding that the PPC "prove" their case is sufficient to defeat them.

Were the PPC to issue proceedings and were the OP to maintain his current stance then he stands a very good chance of losing and even if he were to succeed - by adducing his evidence of rebuttal (assuming that he then has it) - then his chances of obtaining costs are likely to be nil. Indeed the PPC might effectively argue that in pushing matters to court that the OP has acted unreasonably and should therefore be liable for their costs. I think that is described as a pyrrhic victory.

Being offended by the tone of the PPC's demands and withholding information that is within their power to give certainly isn't going to win the OP friends at court unless their tone is so gross that a judge agrees and based on what I have seen previously I think that is unlikely.

IMO, The OP has already given such information as is reasonable, by truthfully stating that he/she was neither driver nor keeper, and cannot name the driver due to not knowing who this is; it wasn't even his/her car at the time.

It's not the OP's fault that the DVLA apparently won't tell the PPC who the new RK was, and it is the responsibility of the claimant to be sure that they are suing the right defendant; the courts are not meant to be used for 'fishing expeditions'. For this reason, I don't believe that the OP is under any obligation to provide "proof of sale" to the PPC; even if he/she does so, the PPC may well refuse to accept it and come after him/her regardless.

Accordingly, if the PPC now rushes to court, the fault is with the PPC, not the defendant, for suing someone who was not the driver and who cannot be held liable under PoFA either. The fact that the OP has already written to the PPC telling them why means that I find to believe that a judge will penalise the OP for subsequently declining to enter into extended correspondence.

If the OP has hard written evidence that he/she was not the keeper, then the presumption as to keeper will surely be successfully rebutted, the claim is likely to fail, and the OP will likely be awarded his/her costs.

In any case, there is a chance that the OP might still defend successfully regardless on the usual defence points (not GPEOL etc).

Coupon-mad

But why would the OP want to risk court just because he wants to make a (valid) point? Why not see it off now?

HO87

jkdd77 wrote: »

If the OP has hard written evidence that he/she was not the keeper, then the presumption as to keeper will surely be successfully rebutted, the claim is likely to fail, and the OP will likely be awarded his/her costs.

Precisely my point. Simply asserting (verbally or in writing) that they were no longer the keeper is not rebutting it is a simple denial. The OP may feel that it is their right to have their day in court and withhold the evidence that rebuts the presumption on that basis.

However, and as I have been at pains to set out previously, parties (or potential parties) to proceedings have a duty to minimise their losses and delaying the production of evidence on a point of principle rather than acting in pursuit of that duty is a sure guarantee of being award a fat zero in costs and running the risk of having to pick up the costs of the PPC to boot.

The additional point that a minority of us are trying to make is that the OP could cause the PPC expense without any risk of inconvenience to themselves. That, it seems, is not up for consideration which from my point of view is just a little odd.

The_Deep

But why would the OP want to risk court just because he wants to make a (valid) point?

Because he can. Being taken to the CC by a PPC is not the end of the world you know CM, (I take it you have never been), are you familiar with Niemoller? m It's all about cojones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...


However, and as I have been at pains to set out previously, parties (or potential parties) to proceedings have a duty to minimise their losses

No they do not, if they want to hire a QC they are fully entitled to do so..

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

Seems to me to be a clear case where the application of cojones is indicated instead of the craven timidity so often recommended here

I wish that I had said that

You probably will ! :rotfl::rotfl:

HO87

The_Deep wrote: »

But why would the OP want to risk court just because he wants to make a (valid) point?

Because he can. Being taken to the CC by a PPC is not the end of the world you know CM, (I take it you have never been), are you familiar with Niemoller? m It's all about cojones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Surely, The Deep you are not suggesting that C-M, of all of the regulars here, is apathetic? She is one poster who could never be described as apathetic in defence of others' rights and all that she is suggesting is that as the OP appears to want to fight there are other more productive means available. At the end of the day it is their choice and if they wish to leave themselves needlessly open to action that is their business.

The_Deep wrote: »

However, and as I have been at pains to set out previously, parties (or potential parties) to proceedings have a duty to minimise their losses

No they do not, if they want to hire a QC they are fully entitled to do so..

You appear to be conflating costs and loss and there is a distinct difference and as a consequence you are going to mislead if you pursue this point. Employing a QC is a cost. A loss, in this context, is a loss of value caused by the act or omission of the other party. I have no intention of debating this issue beyond this but urge you to research the point I have made.

jkdd77

HO87 wrote: »

P
However...[snip]...delaying the production of evidence on a point of principle rather than acting in pursuit of that duty is a sure guarantee of being award a fat zero in costs and running the risk of having to pick up the costs of the PPC to boot.

I completely disagree with this part of the paragraph for the reasons I gave in my earlier post. The OP is under no duty to assist the PPC in bringing a claim against the new purchaser, and I am convinced that:
1) the OP has acted reasonably and would likely be awarded costs;
2) that there is most certainly not "a sure guarantee of being awarded a fat zero in costs";
3) that there is zero chance of being ordered to pay the PPC's costs despite successfully defending the case.

We don't know which PPC it is, but most don't do court, so the question is unlikely to arise in any event.

Coupon-mad

The OP made it clear enough it's PE, I thought.