S172 - reasonable diligence & 'keepership'

[jeffreyarcher]

Interesting new case law on this, www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/490.html

He confirms that 'reasonable diligence' is only an obligation of the 'keeper' (not the RK).

In the case of a non keeper it is for the prosecution to prove that the information is 'in his power to give'.

Lots more in there to chew over.

[fish]

just on the registered keeper issue. Whats to stop you having the family cat as the registered keeper or an infirm relative etc....

[jeffreyarcher]

fish said:

just on the registered keeper issue. Whats to stop you having the family cat as the registered keeper or an infirm relative etc....

Dunno about the cat, but there's nothing wrong with the relative; commonly known as 'granny as the keeper'.
It's harder to get insurance, though, when the person taking out the policy is not the keeper.

Looks as though they're getting wise to it though; new log books have the keeper's age on them. Perhaps a legislative amendment on the way. Thus far, there's no legal obligation on the keeper to actually supply their age, though.

>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Wednesday 21st April 15:16

[Dwight VanDriver]

The family cat is out as both RV Reg & Lic Regs 2002 and Vehicle Excise & Registration Act 1994 refer to the Keeper being "a person". S of State if not satisfied that details are correct on registration can refeuse to issue V5.

Secondly under the later legislation mentioned above
Sect 45 states .. where any declaration for V5 or Excise Licence is known to be false or in any material respect misleading then an offence is committed. Fine of 5,000 notes or 2 years imprisonment.

Thirdly it opens an arguement (note argument) that if Grannie is the recorded keeper then she could become liable for various offences committed by the true owner.

DVD

[jeffreyarcher]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Thirdly it opens an arguement (note argument) that if Grannie is the recorded keeper then she could become liable for various offences committed by the true owner.

Unattended excise offences, very probably. There are also some moving offence cases where the driver has been in doubt. The keeper was convicted (rarely without some other element) by 'inference' as he kept silent. However, in a Granny case, she would presumably have no hesistation in giving evidence in her defence, assuming that she was still compus mentis. She probably wouldn't be best pleased though!