DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13535--------------------------------------------------
'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: January 10, 2024, 3:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
>
> We wish to confirm that SLtd is the hirer and keeper of the
vehicle in question
>
> No you are not. The 'keeper' is the registered keeper.
>
> The hirer is the hirer, that's it, the hirer.
>
--- End Quote ---
Erm, really not.
The registered keeper is assumed to be the keeper unless
otherwise 'proven', the hirer is the keeper with respect to
'keeper liability' (funnily enough).
--- Quote ---
> “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;
--- End Quote ---
All in S4 of The PoFA.
Yes I realise that in para 13 then get's it's knickers in a
twist when referring to the registered keeper as keeper with
respect to naming the hirer, but that's because they are still
the keeper until the hirer (and actual keeper) is named, just
another example of the really bad drafting.
#Post#: 13560--------------------------------------------------
Re: 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 10, 2024, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No confusion. Para. 2, (effectively Definitions) states that the
'keeper' is presumed to be the RK. It then defines RK. That's
it.
This is the last time that the RK is mentioned. Having disposed
of who is the 'keeper' in s2, the rest of Sch 4 refers only to
'keeper' as it should, incl
para. 13.
#Post#: 13576--------------------------------------------------
Re: 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: January 11, 2024, 2:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
>
> No confusion. Para. 2, (effectively Definitions) states that
the 'keeper' is presumed to be the RK. It then defines RK.
That's it.
>
> This is the last time that the RK is mentioned. Having
disposed of who is the 'keeper' in s2, the rest of Sch 4 refers
only to 'keeper' as it should, incl
> para. 13.
>
--- End Quote ---
If the contrary is proved, then the registered keeper is no
longer the keeper, that is surely self evident.
Nearly everywhere else it refers to whoever is proven to be the
keeper, although the poor drafting means sometimes the entity
who is the RK is referred to as the keeper. Para 4 makes the
keeper liable, under your interpretation a Hirer could never
then be liable, as nothing ever makes a hirer liable only the
keeper. It's just really shoddy drafting but it's clear once
the hirer is proven to be the keeper ILO of the registered
keeper they are then the keeper as well as the hirer.
#Post#: 13579--------------------------------------------------
Re: 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 11, 2024, 4:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.
But as regards the issue of what conditions are necessary to
rebut the presumption of who is keeper, this judgment by the
Supreme Court cannot be ignored(it's still on the ETA Key Cases
'meaning of keeper').
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/francis-v-wandsworth.pdf
IMO, it is immaterial that this relates to a penalty charge
notice and the presumption regarding who is to be considered the
'owner', because the court's reasoning refers to different Acts
and regulations which remain in common use today. I have no
doubt that any court would be obliged to apply this judgment in
cases of PoFA-related claims.
Rebutting the presumption isn't just that A had it in their
possession on the day but B was the registered keeper.
Until I was referred to this judgment some years ago my thoughts
were aligned with The Rookie's, but not now.
If others have subsequent case law which sets a different
precedent then fine, I'd adopt those standards in future
analysis.
#Post#: 13632--------------------------------------------------
Re: 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 12, 2024, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have split this discussion off from "Euro Car Parks PCN –
Parked longer than maximum – Sainsburys Ilford"
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/euro-car-parks-pcn-parked-longer-than-maximum-sainsburys-ilford/,<br
/>as there seemed to be some appetite to continue the
discussion,
but doing so in the OP's thread would likely lead to confusion,
and be of little benefit to his case.
#Post#: 13643--------------------------------------------------
Re: 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
DIR By: tonys
Date: January 12, 2024, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone yet seen a case where this was a defence? Where the
RK was not the "keeper" at the time?
#Post#: 13792--------------------------------------------------
Re: 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: January 15, 2024, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tonys link ---
>
> Has anyone yet seen a case where this was a defence? Where the
RK was not the "keeper" at the time?
>
--- End Quote ---
I know of cases where PoFA wasn't complied with and the keeper
could show they were not the driver, the claims rarely get to an
actual court.
But were the RK wasn't the keeper, can't recall any cases where
this was used, or even could have been used.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1