PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Vehicle registered to owner living overseas, can be used as way to avoid all PCNs?
Earl Purple
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 695
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



Based on a topic in the Decriminilised Forum, we have a case of a driver who has driven in a lot of bus lanes in a car owned by his father who lives in Pakistan.

So what really is the legal situation? Could you have someone deliberately register a car in the name and address of someone who lives in a country where it will be hard to chase the debt, and then the driver can essentially make any moving traffic offence they like without risk? (Some may risk police action, particularly if dangerous, but bus-lanes wouldn't be one of those).

Obviously parking runs the risk of a tow.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:25
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,903
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



A UK car can only be registered to someone with a UK address, so while the person named as RK is now in Pakistan I would assume its still registered at the UK address, I'd suggest that both they and the actual keeper are likely committing offences here, PCOJ is not beyond the realms of possibility.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:42
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,524
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think PCOJ would only be reserved for extremely serious cases, such as an incorrectly registered vehicle used for serious criminality. For a run of the mill case like the RK who's in Pakistan, sectio 43C of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is a much better fit:

Offence of using an incorrectly registered vehicle

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, on a public road or in a public place, he uses a vehicle to which subsection (2) applies and in respect of which—
(a) the name and address of the keeper are not recorded in the register, or
(b )any of the particulars recorded in the register are incorrect.

(2) This subsection applies to a vehicle if—
(a) vehicle excise duty is chargeable in respect of it, or
(b) it is an exempt vehicle in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force.

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show (as the case may be)—
(a) that there was no reasonable opportunity, before the material time, to furnish the name and address of the keeper of the vehicle, or
(b) that there was no reasonable opportunity, before the material time, to furnish particulars correcting the incorrect particulars.

(4) It is also a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show—
(a) that he had reasonable grounds for believing, or that it was reasonable for him to expect, that the name and address of the keeper or the other particulars of registration (as the case may be) were correctly recorded in the register, or
(b) that any exception prescribed in regulations under this section is met.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing, varying or revoking exceptions for the purposes of subsection (4)(b).

(7) In this section—
“keeper”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom it is kept at the material time;
“the register” means the register kept by the Secretary of State under Part 2.


As this is a criminal offence it hardly seems worth it for the sake of escaping a £35 to £55 civil penalty.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Earl Purple
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:55
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 695
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



I guess then it's a difference between Owner and Keeper.

The owner can live in Pakistan, but the vehicle must have a registered "keeper" in this country who is responsible for looking after things like vehicle excise duty, MOT and insurance and responsible for any PCNs (and S172s). That person must have a registered address in this country where they can be contacted.

If that person moves overseas and leaves the car in the UK where it is being used, someone else must become its registered keeper. (I guess it could be SORNed with an overseas keeper, so if I went away for a long period and left my car on my private property I could SORN it without a problem).


(That is the meaning of 7 above).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:53
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,903
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:42) *
I think PCOJ would only be reserved for extremely serious cases, such as an incorrectly registered vehicle used for serious criminality. .

I would suggest if the intent of the 'incorrect' registering was to pervert the course of justice, then PCOJ would be entirely proportionate, if it was a genuine oversite then I'd agree not, Hence my wording of the possibility of PCOJ.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 13:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,524
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:53) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:42) *
I think PCOJ would only be reserved for extremely serious cases, such as an incorrectly registered vehicle used for serious criminality. .

I would suggest if the intent of the 'incorrect' registering was to pervert the course of justice, then PCOJ would be entirely proportionate, if it was a genuine oversite then I'd agree not, Hence my wording of the possibility of PCOJ.

Given the difficulties of proving intent, you may well find that the authorities pursue the document offence even if they think intent was present. It would need to be a pretty compelling case to persuade a court beyond reasonable doubt that it couldn't have been forgetfulness or an oversight.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:18
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,992
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:53) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:42) *
I think PCOJ would only be reserved for extremely serious cases, such as an incorrectly registered vehicle used for serious criminality. .

I would suggest if the intent of the 'incorrect' registering was to pervert the course of justice, then PCOJ would be entirely proportionate, if it was a genuine oversite then I'd agree not, Hence my wording of the possibility of PCOJ.

However, you need to heed the order of events: according to the CPS the "course of justice" must have been under way at the time of the defendant's act--which was supposedly intended to pervert it--and an 'incorrect' registration would most likely have taken place in advance of any such "course of justice".

On a more practical level, the DVLA's consistent position is that it will not accept a change of keeper address to one outside of the UK, so a PPC will always be able to obtain a MCOL-compliant RK address via the DVLA. Perhaps it could be argued that the DVLA's refusal to accept a duly made notification of a non-UK address for the keeper would be covered by the defence provided in s.43C(3). The DVLA is happy to accept "c/o" addresses and other arrangements seemingly in contradiction with s.43©(1) in the case of caravaners and other persons of no fixed abode within the UK, but maybe that is actually done under s.43C(4)(b) and (6).

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:25
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,903
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



That would mean laser jammers can’t be PCOJ as they are fitted before the course of justice, as the CPS has proven willing to chase those cases to court I’d suggest that’s a simplistic outlook.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:41
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,524
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:25) *
That would mean laser jammers can’t be PCOJ as they are fitted before the course of justice, as the CPS has proven willing to chase those cases to court I’d suggest that’s a simplistic outlook.

I believe laser jammers are dealt with as obstruct police rather than PCOJ.

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:53) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:42) *
I think PCOJ would only be reserved for extremely serious cases, such as an incorrectly registered vehicle used for serious criminality. .

I would suggest if the intent of the 'incorrect' registering was to pervert the course of justice, then PCOJ would be entirely proportionate, if it was a genuine oversite then I'd agree not, Hence my wording of the possibility of PCOJ.

However, you need to heed the order of events: according to the CPS the "course of justice" must have been under way at the time of the defendant's act--which was supposedly intended to pervert it--and an 'incorrect' registration would most likely have taken place in advance of any such "course of justice".

On a more practical level, the DVLA's consistent position is that it will not accept a change of keeper address to one outside of the UK, so a PPC will always be able to obtain a MCOL-compliant RK address via the DVLA. Perhaps it could be argued that the DVLA's refusal to accept a duly made notification of a non-UK address for the keeper would be covered by the defence provided in s.43C(3). The DVLA is happy to accept "c/o" addresses and other arrangements seemingly in contradiction with s.43©(1) in the case of caravaners and other persons of no fixed abode within the UK, but maybe that is actually done under s.43C(4)(b) and (6).

--Churchmouse

For the purposes of section 43C(1), the address is simply an address at which the RK is able to receive post and thus discharge his legal obligations for PCNs, s172s and so on. There is no requirement for it to be the residence or otherwise the address where the RK can be physically found. Arguably if an overseas RK has set up an international mail forwarding service with Royal Mail, they can continue to be the RK without any problems.

The whole overseas issue is a red herring, the real issue is if the RK address is an address at which the RK cannot receive correspondence, the fact that the RK's new address is in the UK or overseas is somewhat irrelevant IMO (other than if he's in the UK it will be easier for the authorities to investigate / prosecute him).


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:45
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,000
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



IMO the RK vs owner is the matter at hand. If the OP has been keeping the vehicle, taxing insuring repairing etc then they could be considered to be the owner regardless of name on v5c
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 17:07
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,024
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:45) *
IMO the RK vs owner is the matter at hand. If the OP has been keeping the vehicle, taxing insuring repairing etc then they could be considered to be the owner regardless of name on v5c


Do you mean "considered to be the keeper"?

Ownership is entirely irrlevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 17:10
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,000
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 17:07) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:45) *
IMO the RK vs owner is the matter at hand. If the OP has been keeping the vehicle, taxing insuring repairing etc then they could be considered to be the owner regardless of name on v5c


Do you mean "considered to be the keeper"?

Ownership is entirely irrlevant.



No considered to be the owner. It is the owner who is liable for council PCN's. this is only presumed to be the RK for the purpose of serving a PCN. This can be rebutted. And as with lease companies who cannot transfer liability through the vehicle hire ground. They can show that someone else assumes the rights and responsibilities of owner
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 18:02
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,524
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 17:10) *
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 17:07) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:45) *
IMO the RK vs owner is the matter at hand. If the OP has been keeping the vehicle, taxing insuring repairing etc then they could be considered to be the owner regardless of name on v5c


Do you mean "considered to be the keeper"?

Ownership is entirely irrlevant.


No considered to be the owner. It is the owner who is liable for council PCN's. this is only presumed to be the RK for the purpose of serving a PCN. This can be rebutted. And as with lease companies who cannot transfer liability through the vehicle hire ground. They can show that someone else assumes the rights and responsibilities of owner

Tax is the liability of the keeper, regardless of who the owner is, under section 29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994:

29 Penalty for using or keeping unlicensed vehicle.
(1)If a person uses, or keeps, [F1a vehicle] which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) a vehicle is unlicensed if no vehicle licence or trade licence is in force for or in respect of the vehicle.


Insurance is also a keeper offence under section 144A of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements
(1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.


There is no presumption in play, Parliament has decided the RK is responsible for such matters, so the only questions for a court is
A) Did the vehicle, at the material time, not meet the insurance requirement or was it unlicenced, and
B) Is the accused the person in whose name the vehicle is registered

If these two can be answered in the affirmative then, unless one of the statutory exemptions apply, the accused is guilty. Ownership is irrelevant.

The situation with PCNs is different because for those, Parliament has decided the owner of the vehicle is liable, rather than the keeper, so the presumption that the keeper is the owner is rebuttable.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 18:03


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
localdriver
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 20:48
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,151
Joined: 3 Sep 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 22,300



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 18:02) *
Tax is the liability of the keeper, regardless of who the owner is, under section 29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994: 29 Penalty for using or keeping unlicensed vehicle. (1)If a person uses, or keeps, [F1a vehicle] which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1) a vehicle is unlicensed if no vehicle licence or trade licence is in force for or in respect of the vehicle. Insurance is also a keeper offence under section 144A of the Road Traffic Act 1988: Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements (1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.


It is the owner who is liable for council PCN's, this is presumed to be the registered keeper.

Both of the other matters can be a subject to offences by the registered keeper or the user/keeper.

For no vehicle licence, the person using or keeping the vehicle would commit the offence under s.29, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994, the registered keeper would commit the offence under s.31A of the same act.

For no insurance it is similar, the person using the vehicle would commit the offence under s.143, Road Traffic Act 1988, the registered keeper would commit the offence under s.144A of the same act.

This post has been edited by localdriver: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 20:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 21:00
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,903
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:41) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:25) *
That would mean laser jammers can’t be PCOJ as they are fitted before the course of justice, as the CPS has proven willing to chase those cases to court I’d suggest that’s a simplistic outlook.

I believe laser jammers are dealt with as obstruct police rather than PCOJ.


Not usually... https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/laser-jammer-prison/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-...kshire-41842629


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 02:49
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,524
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



@localdriver of course the user is also liable, the point I was making is that ownership is irrelevant.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 21:00) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:41) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:25) *
That would mean laser jammers can’t be PCOJ as they are fitted before the course of justice, as the CPS has proven willing to chase those cases to court I’d suggest that’s a simplistic outlook.

I believe laser jammers are dealt with as obstruct police rather than PCOJ.


Not usually... https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/laser-jammer-prison/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-...kshire-41842629

Here's a couple cases that suggest obstruct police is also used

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8...mer-banned.html

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news...harge-1-1021879


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 05:31
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,992
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 21:00) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:41) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:25) *
That would mean laser jammers can’t be PCOJ as they are fitted before the course of justice, as the CPS has proven willing to chase those cases to court I’d suggest that’s a simplistic outlook.

I believe laser jammers are dealt with as obstruct police rather than PCOJ.


Not usually... https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/laser-jammer-prison/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-...kshire-41842629

In the first one, it was reported that the gentleman threw the device in a river: that was an "act" tending to, and intended to, pervert the course of public justice, which he did following the commencement of such course of justice. That would have been sufficient for PCoJ.

In the second, who knows, but you're skating on thin ice if you get your facts from news stories or police officers (or the Internet)...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 05:51
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,992
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:41) *
For the purposes of section 43C(1), the address is simply an address at which the RK is able to receive post and thus discharge his legal obligations for PCNs, s172s and so on. There is no requirement for it to be the residence or otherwise the address where the RK can be physically found. Arguably if an overseas RK has set up an international mail forwarding service with Royal Mail, they can continue to be the RK without any problems.

The whole overseas issue is a red herring, the real issue is if the RK address is an address at which the RK cannot receive correspondence, the fact that the RK's new address is in the UK or overseas is somewhat irrelevant IMO (other than if he's in the UK it will be easier for the authorities to investigate / prosecute him).

As usual, I'm wondering if there isn't another statute that might be relevant? VERA 1994 s.43C(1) clearly states that the name and address of the keeper of a UK vehicle being used in the UK must be correctly recorded in the register kept by the UK Secretary of State. This statute says nothing at all about the purpose of such registration or where the address must be located.

If you read the DVLA's FOA missives (available online) you can see that the DVLA's solution to the problem of the accurate registration of the addresses of persons with no fixed abode is to accept any 'ol address at which the keeper can receive correspondence (provided that address is in the UK). But if this is permitted by s.43C, so is a foreign address...which would be a problem, not only for PPCs, but also for Chief Constables' correspondence. That, it seems to me is why the DVLA will not "permit" it.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 16:45
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,524
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 05:31) *
...but you're skating on thin ice if you get your facts from news stories or police officers (or the Internet)...

Well that goes for both of us, as both the links you posted are on the internet :-p


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 18:59
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,992
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 16:45) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 05:31) *
...but you're skating on thin ice if you get your facts from news stories or police officers (or the Internet)...

Well that goes for both of us, as both the links you posted are on the internet :-p

As, indeed, am I...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 13th November 2018 - 01:34
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.