Who is the actual ‘defendant’ in enforcement actions[as it were]

There seems to be a plethora of titles/names which many people bandy about as if there are interchangeable [and in many cases they actually are…but not always!!!!].
I’ll list the ones I’ve thought of [and try to define them]
Registered Keeper – name declared on V5
Keeper – person normally keeping the vehicle [eg in the case of a leased vehicle this would be the lease??]
Owner – who actually legally owns the car [ie paid for it?]
Driver – person driving/parking vehicle at time of offence
Responsible person – eg company secretary if the RK is a company??

My question is this….
For a Council Parking Ticket who should actual legal proceedings and enforcement be issued against??
I get the impression that for most cases it’s the Registered Keeper [name on the V5]….[except for ‘leased/hired’ vehicles, where there seems to be something in law which allows the liability to be transferred to the ‘Keeper’.
I don’t think the law gives a list [as above] and says ‘Choose whichever one you want to enforce against’?? I think the law specifies who has ‘responsibility’….???

So maybe an example would help…..
Car gets a PCN on it.
Driver [or whoever] throws it in the bin, and ignores all correspondence.
Which of the above list of ‘entities’ [they are different for this car] MUST the council name in the court papers, or do they have discretion to name someone else??

The council can only use the name and address on the V5, they have nothing else, after all. The legislation states that the vehicle owner is responsible as recorded on the V5 as the keeper unless this person can prove it is not him, but somebody else. The onus of proof rests with the keeper on the V5.

What he said.

The Owner of the vehicle is the person with who liability rests.
Owner is taken as:-

S92, TMA 2004
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/92

There are specific grounds to challenge ownership, Hire company being one of them. Not being the owner being another, ie. vehicle sold before PCN served.


Court papers ?
Please explain a little more, what court papers ?

In a council system,
PCN...driver finds, can pay, challenge or ignore.
Notice to Owner.... sent to person named on V5/DVLA records...the Registered Keeper.
They can challenge, pay or ignore
Charge Certificate... pay now or else.
Order for Recovery... debt registered with court.
Bailiffs.

All this action against the Registered Keeper unless they take action.
Council can accept that they aren't the owner, the act and regulations allow in certain circumstances.
But cannot simply pull a name out of the hat

Thqanks for that...

as a side issue then [and apologies for the digression] , why on all the bailiff TV programs do the bailiffs refuse to accept [when it suits them] that the 'name on the V5' is the owner of the vehicle?? If the defendant is NOT the name on the V5, they normally say 'unless you [eg the defendants son] can PROVE its yours then we will still take it.

Because swapping V5s/ownership within families is a well known scam.

OP, you are off target.

Actual ownership of the vehicle which was involved in the contravention is irrelevant as regards identifying the person liable to pay the penalty plus additional charges.

Process:
Postal PCN or NTO served on the 'owner'. This is not necessarily the owner, but the 'owner'. Note the quotation marks, 'owner' has nothing to do with owning, the 'owner' is, as posted before 'the person by whom the vehicle is normally kept .... the registered keeper'.

The process then grinds on and ultimately the 'owner' would be named on a warrant. At this stage who actually owns the vehicle involved is as irrelevant as the vehicle, the debt is owed by the debtor who is the person named on the warrant who is the person whose reps were ultimately rejected.

In practical terms the vehicle is a marker because the vehicle tends to be owned by the 'owner' named on the warrant. Therefore find the vehicle and you find the person named on the warrant. Inevitably the vehicle's value, even at a forced sale, would cover the debt, so they seize the vehicle.

At which point the person named on the warrant would need to prove that they are not the owner and have no beneficial interest in the vehicle which is an asset of someone else. Please note that this does NOT relieve them of their debt, the enforcement agents might seize any property belonging to them, perhaps even a different vehicle or a computer or TV etc.

There's also the issue mentioned in another thread recently regarding a car that was seized for a previous owner's penalties

It concerned the disposal of assets by selling them to a third party to avoid bailiffs seizing them

The comment was along the lines that the car became technically liable to seizure from the date of the original parking event, not the date of the Order for Recovery (OrF)
Even if it was sold before the OrF, it could therefore be seized from the new owner unless he could prove that he'd bought it in good faith

With a vehicle there are a few potential owners/keepers etc. My question is which one is the council supposed/allowed to take to court for parking tickets??

By way of example....

Owner - the person who actually owns the vehicle
Registered Keeper - name on the V5
Keeper - the person in day to day charge of the vehicle
Driver - the person driving the vehicle at the time of the offence
Main Insured Person - the first name on the insurance policy/person who took out the insurance

All five of these people could be different for a vehicle.

Assuming this to be the case, which one of the five is the council supposed/obliged to take action against??? Can they just choose any of them??

Why do you ask?

The Owner.
Who is taken as the registered keeper unless proven otherwise.

OP, not quite.

For parking contraventions S92 of the governing legislation (Traffic Management Act 2004) refers:

“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered

It also includes:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/5/made

Owning has nothing to do with being the 'owner', other than through coincidence. Similarly with insurance for the same reasons i.e. the policy holder must have an insurable interest in the vehicle which presumes owning. Driver is irrelevant although that person could also have hired the vehicle and therefore fall within 5(3) above.

So that I can make sure the right person/entity is down as the 'owner' to deal with the tickets etc.


So basically it's the RK [name on the v5], unless "the contrary is proved"....

Thnx

Which sounds as if you have an unusual situation and might be in danger of getting in a mess trying to explain to an EA.

If you have a PCN bring it here and we can give a more considered view.

OP asked same question a few months ago:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105797&hl=

Ah, so it's possibly already in a mess?

Sorry for delay in replying but I've been crazy busy.

I'm not currently in 'a mess' nor do I have an actual 'live' PCN.

I'm just making sure that should the occasion arise then I have the right name down as 'responsible'.....

To all intents and purposes it will be the RK unless they can show that someone else is the "owner" for the purposes of the law.
Often this is because the vehicle is under some sort of hire agreement.
Otherwise, very difficult to get out from under the presumption that the RK is the Owner

..should the occasion arise..and

...make sure I have the right name down as responsible...

..are incompatible statements.

The person responsible is the person responsible whether you get a notice or not, it doesn't need you to make a decision 'should the occasion arise', they are whether an occasion arises or not.

Something's a little odd here.

You think

I can see uncle bob in Nepal being named as owner