VCS at JLA and RK driving assumption |
VCS at JLA and RK driving assumption |
Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 17:01
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 277 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,755 |
Thinking sideways on this
My wife has no licence. could she be the RK although i own the car, and would this affect insurance? So should i ever go to JLAand they assume the RK is the driver, their supposition would fall apart? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 17:01
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 17:25
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
Are you sure you've posted in the right place?
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 17:36
Post
#3
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
Are you sure you've posted in the right place? It doesn't sound like it's asking for help with a live case, so yes. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 17:48
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Asked similar a couple of weeks back
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125512&hl= RK can be anyone AFAIK though DVLA prefer it is the regular driver. Insurance companies prefer RK to be the primary insurance name. But I don't believe any is mandatory or unlawful unless done with intent to defraud. Which your postulation seems to be bordering on. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 18:54
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Which your postulation seems to be bordering on. How so? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 19:43
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Which your postulation seems to be bordering on. How so? Deliberately changing the RK to someone who does not/cannot drive for the purpose of avoiding potential claims. OP would strenuously deny such an allegation, simply saying they put owner as RK and even should anyone in authority get their knickers in a twist I doubt that it would get far on the road to charges. And doubt that any PPC would do otherwise then chase the owner/RK on the "reasonable presumption" that they were driving. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 20:01
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Which your postulation seems to be bordering on. How so? Deliberately changing the RK to someone who does not/cannot drive for the purpose of avoiding potential claims. What's fraudulent about that? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 23:10
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Which your postulation seems to be bordering on. How so? Deliberately changing the RK to someone who does not/cannot drive for the purpose of avoiding potential claims. What's fraudulent about that? Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 ? I did say borderline but many elements of the plan would seem to fall into the scope. |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 02:11
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
It’s nowhere near borderline, it’s far from it, there is no intent at all, she can quite legitimately be the RK.
I’m the RK of my wife’s car, it’s her car, she drives it. (I of course paid for it, though would have paid more in subtle ways if I hadn’t I suspect). -------------------- 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 02:34
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
It’s nowhere near borderline, it’s far from it, there is no intent at all, she can quite legitimately be the RK. I’m the RK of my wife’s car, it’s her car, she drives it. (I of course paid for it, though would have paid more in subtle ways if I hadn’t I suspect). There is intent, clear in the threads that OP has started. OP's wife doesn't drive so cannot be RK in the sense of the person who normally uses the vehicle or even occasionally uses. But I agree, no reason she should not be in law. |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 04:21
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Being the RK has nothing to do with driving it at all - what on earth makes you conflate 'keeper' with 'driver'? Many lease companies are the RK, do they ever drive it?
It would only be an attempt to defraud if the driver then SET OUT to incur a charge they could then not be liable for, not if it 'just happened', and they could then be defrauding the keeper anyway who could be liable under PoFA for many car parks. -------------------- 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 06:39
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
Proven non-driving RKs getting demands/legal threats has already been tried by Civil Enforcement in Scotland where there is no Keeper Liability.
An RK who was about 70 and had never had a licence didn't want to put the car in someone else's name. He was a key witness in the fraud case Procurator Fiscal v Civil Enforcement. You would have thought such a solid example of a PPC attempting to use the law the other way i.e. to defraud RK's would have held water, but no. So the chances of it applying in the other direction is simply fantasy. |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 07:06
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
The identity of the Registered Keeper is nothing to do with ownership or driving it is simply the person or company who the DVLA have on record as responsible for paying Vehicle Excise Duty.
-------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 08:39
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,423 Joined: 15 Apr 2009 From: Winnersh, UK Member No.: 27,840 |
A friend of mine does not have a driving licence but is the RK of a vehicle he owns, insures taxes etc. The reason he does not drive (and has never driven) is that he is in a wheelchair due to brittle bone disease. Therefore there is nothing in lkaw to prevent a non-driver owning, taxing, insuring and maintaining a vehicle
I also disagree with DD's thoughts that this type of arrangement could in any way be construed as fraudulent. PoFA allows for the transfer of liability to the registered keeper under certain conditions. The onus is on the PPC to meet these conditions and the RK of a vehicle cannot be held accountable for the failure of a PPC to do so |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 08:48
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
The onus is on the PPC to meet these conditions and the RK of a vehicle cannot be held accountable for the failure of a PPC to do so Of course, but that's only for relevant land. (Where JLA is not AIUI) This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 08:49 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 12:12
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
...….it would only be an attempt to defraud if the driver then SET OUT to incur a charge they could then not be liable for, not if it 'just happened'...……. Precisely my point though I disagree that they need to set out to incur a charge, if it was done to avoid the possibility that is enough. To be fraud and any chance of a conviction certain factors have to be met. It has to be a dishonest declaration. OP said they were the owner, wife doesn't drive. While it is not illegal to put someone else but the owner as RK, happens in plenty of cases, why do it in this case? That would be something for a court to decide within the circumstances of the case and whether or not it was dishonest. Borderline. Has to be a false representation. If it is done to be misleading, it falls into that category. The person making it has to know it is misleading, that is a given in this thread, OP knows exactly why they are thinking on it. There has to be intent to cause a gain or a loss to another. Again, given that the OP is thinking on it for a specific reason, ie to bu55er up VLCs presumption that the keeper is the driver, there is intent. That intent devolves to any case with a PPC who do not use POFA or do not use it correctly and rely on driver liability with the presumption that RK is driver. A "get out of jail free" card in effect but one created deliberately not just happened. These elements would certainly not be present in many cases and even in this one would be questionable if they ever could be proven except by self incrimination. Certainly could not be applied to every situation whereby a family pragmatic decision made one person RK over another. Or even if for instance, I chose to use my wife's car (her being RK) to visit JLA, that is simply a pragmatic decision that has an unlooked for benefit. I said borderline, I meant borderline, doubt very much if it would ever be debated in a court. But that does not change my opening statement, that it does border on fraud, in this case or any other where someone thinks "this is a good wheeze" |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 12:59
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
But that does not change my opening statement, that it does border on fraud, Just because you repeat it doesn’t make it true. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:14
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
But that does not change my opening statement, that it does border on fraud, Just because you repeat it doesn’t make it true. Fully accept that SP. But am waiting on someone to tell me why ? I've laid out my logic and pointed towards the relevant law. I accept my logic may be flawed and that it is a stretch but where am I falling down please ? |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:29
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 277 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,755 |
DD and others
Sorry for the double post, its my age!!! But it was the fact that the PPC can chase on the reasonable assumption RK was the driver, however it has been stated lease firms and PLC are often the RK . So in those cases what does the PPC do, chase a firm or go to court and get the company sec to state under oath who was driving> Likewise, instead of my wife being the RK , i could just make my self employed company a Ltd one with several named drivers on the policy. I am not enquiring to get one over on the PPC, just interested on small print on how far they would go. |
|
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:38
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
I could just make my self employed company a Ltd one with several named drivers on the policy
I wouldn't do that. It makes it easy for the PCC to hold the company liable for its employees and any hearing would be at its local court, not yours There's nothing unusual about a husband-wife registering or insuring each others cars My wife and I had that arrangement for years It was a consequence of alternating the insurance when we were running a single car and wanted to keep both No Claims Bonuses live The only difference in the OP's case is that, in the event of a claim for a "Not relevant land" parking notice, she can more easily prove that she wasn't the driver I can't see how it can be Fraud by false representation A driver visiting JLA or anywhere else never makes any representation regarding the keeper or owner He is, in theory, making a gain for himself and a loss for VCS if he deliberately stops in the knowledge that they won't be able to recover payment That argument, however, applies to any situation when a driver (not the registered keeper) parks in the knowledge that the parking company's Notices don't comply with POFA This post has been edited by Redivi: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:41 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:36 |