In this case the appellant company Otto Car Limited argues that liability for the
penalty charge notice (PCN) should be transferred to the person it describes as the
hirer of the vehicle in question, a Mr. Baffour, pursuant to what it describes as a
hiring agreement. The case for the enforcement authority (EA) is that liability cannot
be transferred because Mr. Baffour's agreement is with Otto Car Limited and not with
the registered keeper (and hence presumed de facto keeper and deemed owner) of
the vehicle as recorded by the DVLA, namely "Dfm C/O Otto Car Ltd 048409". The
EA says these are two separate entities. In my view, on a true construction of the
'hiring agreement' and the DVLA records, respectively, neither party is correct.
I allow the appeal, however, because I find that de facto keepership has, by virtue of
the particular terms of the agreement with Mr. Baffour, transferred from the appellant
company to him. The parties are entitled to a reasoned decision as to why I have
reached the conclusion I have.
THE REGISTERED KEEPER
This is yet another example of ambiguous and arguably defective record-keeping by
the DVLA. It is absolutely essential, particularly for Police and civil road traffic
enforcement, that the DVLA maintains an accurate register of precisely which person
keeps a vehicle. Only one person can be the registered keeper of a given vehicle at
a given time. A person can be a natural person or a legal person. Although the DVLA
regulations permit a 'care of' address to be used by the registered keeper
(Regulations 10(5A) and 22(7) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)
Regulations 2002), I am not sure that that is what has occurred here, despite the use
of 'c/o'. There is no evidence anywhere in this case of what 'Dfm' is or the
significance of the number '048409'. There is no evidence that there is some person
called 'Dfm' which is the owner of the vehicle. The number is not the company
number of Otto Car Limited. Rather, it seems likely to me that the letters 'Dfm' and
the number '048409' have some sort of administrative meaning for Otto Car Limited.
The 'hiring agreement' clearly shows that Otto Car Limited is the legal owner of the
vehicle. All correspondence with the EA and with this tribunal has been from Otto
Car Limited. In my view, Otto Car Limited probably sought to register the vehicle with
the DVLA in its name and should be taken to be the registered keeper of the vehicle,
notwithstanding the confusion caused by the unnecessary addition of the letters and
numbers around its name and the use of 'c/o'. I do not find that the registered keeper
is an entity called 'Dfm', care of Otto Car Limited. I therefore do not accept the EA's
case that the vehicle's registered keeper and hence presumed owner is a different
person to the person which contracted with Mr. Baffour.
The DVLA should not, in my view, have permitted the vehicle to be registered in the
ambiguous terms in which it was registered. By doing so it has caused confusion and