Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: stevep119 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 13:20
Post #1528116

Hi,

Looking for some advice

Yesterday a driver accidently drove past a sign that said "Except Access Only".

The road they was travelling on had a mini roundabout with two exits, (straight over or right).

The sign is past the mini roundabout meaning you would have to go over the mini roundabout to see it, and in turn enter the "Except Access only" road.

As I say, they didnt see the sign, there was no yellow lines on the road and they could see other cars parked up without displaying permits or anything.

They did a 3 point turn and at that point their phone rang so they pulled over. While on the phone the driver saw a white van with a private security company name on the side.

The guy was taking a photo of the sign the driver had driven past. He then got in the van and drove up towards the drivers car. He parked about 10ft away, got out and then using his smart phone pointed it at an angle that looked like it might capture the drivers car but was not head on if that makes sense.

The driver looked at him and he smiled and waved. He made no indication the driver had done anything wrong nor made any enquires as to why the driver was in the road.

It looked like he either took a short video or a few pics in the general direction of the drivers car. He then drove drove off.

The driver was concerned as they wasnt aware they had done anything wrong, they looked around and again could see cars in the road parked and no lines or signs.

The driver decided to go and have a look at the sign, and when they got to it they saw it said "Except Access Only" with a picture of a car and a motorbike on top of eachother.

Concerned they drove away from the area and when they got home started worrying that this guy was taking pics of them and their car and will report them.

Has anyone else had this happen? what are the fines for entering an access only road.

Any help would be appreciated.

Posted by: stamfordman Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 13:24
Post #1528119

Let's see a google street view of where this is.

Posted by: stevep119 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 13:29
Post #1528122

I have attached it

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 13:34
Post #1528127

A link to that please so we can have a look around.

The sign would not only say for access only, there would have been a restriction, No Motor Vehicles for instance with the Access part an exemption.
Which is what it looks like.

At the moment have no idea if you have anything to worry on or should be expecting a notice in the post.
Outside of London or Cardiff, won't be a council.

Posted by: stevep119 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 13:41
Post #1528130

Thank you

here is a link to google maps, it was not in London. I think the road belongs to the Uni and is adopted by the Council? I am not sure.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7630028,-0.2488507,3a,75y,261.4h,87.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1su_qowHzGVsRjFhAzIEXvdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Du_qowHzGVsRjFhAzIEXvdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D92.82513%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

On google it shows two signs, one on each side of the road but I only saw one sign when I went back to look

Thanks again.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 14:03
Post #1528143

The No Motor Vehicles sign would not be a concern IMO, only the cops can do you for that.
This one may be
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7626543,-0.2499564,3a,44y,109.04h,97.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTbg2NDWBHPr9zZ1i8cyrKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Private parking signs and your description could mean a love letter from them coming through the post.

If it does, the Private Parking Forum is the place to be.
If you post on there, refer to the driver, no I parked to answer my phone, the driver parked, the driver went through 15 no entry signs and did a handbrake turn... never admit to being the driver, even or especially on here.
You may want to edit your original on here....which will probably move to the flame pit BTW.

Posted by: stevep119 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 14:19
Post #1528151

Thanks for the info.

Can the private secuirity guy pass the images onto the police of the driver? how would the police or the secruity guy know what access the driver needed? maybe they was visiting a house for sale on the road?

To be clear, the driver said the secruity guy only took a picture of the "access only" sign. He didnt take pics of the parking signs on the lamposts. Which led the driver to believe the guy was looking to enforce the access only despite not being a police officer !

As for the parking signs, doesnt the warden have to witness the driver parked for more than a certain amount of time before the can do anything?

The driver said they only pulled over for a few mins.

Posted by: stamfordman Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 14:24
Post #1528153

Nothing to do but wait and update this thread if a PCN comes. Is the car reg doc (V5C) up to date.

Posted by: stevep119 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 14:27
Post #1528155

Yes the driver confirmed the V5C is upto date.

Thanks. I will let the driver no

So a private parking company cannot issue an FPN? which is what the Police would issue if they saw someone drive into an access only road without a valid reason?

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 15:39
Post #1528189

If it is to be a police ticket, it could be based on a video/photos sent in by a private person.
That would need the video showing the vehicle passing the sign.
Could it happen, yes, would it, dunno but doubt it.

IMO far more likely would be that the guy is working for the PPC and some sort of letter would come from them, parking without permit or something similar.

It is wait and see what appears if anything.

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 15:40
Post #1528190

Why doesn’t “the driver” come and ask themselves?

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 16:08
Post #1528199

Quite possibly cos I suggested the driver is referred to as this could go PPC route with driver but not owner liability as a possible option.

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 20:09
Post #1528279

That'll make advice nice and easy then... I've aired my views on that "strategy" before. Does it work at POPLA/IPC (or whatever they’re called today)?

Does this need to be moved?

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 21:11
Post #1528286

Not until it becomes something more than a suggestive leer from a security goon, I would suggest,

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:15
Post #1528303

I could not say for Popla though I believe they do or did take driver v owner liability seriously
IPC (or their new monicker) by many accounts reject anything in favour of the PPC.
I can say from first hand that it is taken seriously in court proceedings. The PPC solicitor (for BW legal acting for VCL) ws extremely keen to show I was the driver on the day. They had not bothered with the niceties of POFA so were relying on "reasonable assumption" to show that myself as the owner was the driver. The judge was less bothered but I suspect because he had made his decision on other matters anyway.

Not a live case here anyway, just potential.
Whether it goes further, OP will know if a letter comes through the door.

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 23:03
Post #1528320

At court it can be downright dangerous. If the claim alleges that the defendant was the driver then the defendant is taken to accept that assertion unless it’s denied. If the defendant was in fact the driver they can’t deny it (or state no knowledge if they do have knowledge) without falling foul of the statement of truth. In a properly conducted case it’s of limited, if any, value and could get the defendant into serious bother if they make a false declaration.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 23:33
Post #1528331

If the claimant makes an allegation with no evidential basis whatsoever, they also risk falling foul of the statement of truth. Signing a SoT claiming that the defendant was in fact the driver when this is a mere assumption could be seen at the very least as reckless.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 23:33
Post #1528332

Fully accepted and a point I have seen you make before. And thought hard on prior to my case being heard.

In my case the claim alleged I was the driver based on reasonable assumption.
I did not deny but did point out that reasonable assumption was at best 50/50 given there are two named drivers on insurance. That they were targeting the owner because they could not be bothered to follow POFA and that I saw no need to put any other family member n the frame when they had singularly failed to establish who the driver was and were pursuing a speculative claim.
As it happened the judge did ask me direct and I answered truthfully. By that time I was almost 100% sure I had won anyway and that any prevarication would not endear me to the court.
It was found that VCL had failed to provide a parking place (car park was jammed solid) so their offer of parking was not one I could take up, so no contract and no case. In that respect it would not have mattered on driver or owner liability.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 23:35
Post #1528333

That's the sort of thing that makes me think if I'm ever a defendant in a small claim track case, I need to try and get it bumped up to the fast track.

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 00:46
Post #1528344

You had to be there.
By the time the question was asked, I was very much of the opinion that it did not matter, I thnk the Judge asked not in any attempt to get me to admit "guilt" but so he could ask me a couple of direct questions that only the driver could answer.
Did I park?.... No
Did I pick up or drop anyone off?... No
He then immediately found in my favour.
The judge did make the point throughout that it was for BW to prove their case, not for me to defend.
I'm still not sure how that matches SP's points or indeed my own thoughts.
To me if someone makes an accusation, I need to defend in some respect.
How it would have gone had I not included the tale of the driver getting jammed in an overcrowded and badly managed car park, dunno.
I cannot agree that "reasonable assumption" can be enough when it could have been one of two simply on who was insured.
And not when it is speculative because they ignore the requirements that the law stipulates for Owner Liability and try to bluff it.
But that is not to say that a court wouldn't

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 08:57
Post #1528382

It is for the claimant to prove their case. However, the rules require the defendant to deal with allegations in the claim in one of three ways - admit, deny or say no knowledge. The reply has to be true. It’s not a criminal trial where you can simply put the other side to proof (unless you have no knowledge) - that’s not how civil trials work.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 19:33
Post #1528566

True but if the SoT for the PoC was signed recklessly, you have the option of pursing a contempt case.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 20:20
Post #1528575

You do but you’d be hard pushed to prove it to the criminal standard where it’s phrased as “driver and/or keeper” and they’ve written asking for driver details and had no reply.

My concern is that an OP is given advice, or a defence is written for them, which says they’re not the driver. A lot of OP’s won’t argue and will just sign what’s there. The thread just refers to “the driver” but in fact it was them. Straight contempt, whether it’s pursued or not.

Posted by: anon45 Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 20:59
Post #1528584

In support of southpaw82's advice in post #21 (presumably referencing 16.5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16, I found case law: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/7.html indicating that:

That said, if the PPC doesn't know who was driving, (and is unable to invoke RK liability), telling them who was driving prior to court action may be unwise in that:
1) POPLA (unlike the IPC's "I"AS) do usually uphold appeals on the basis of "the driver is not identified and there is no RK liability", provided that POPLA are satisfied on both points (of course, this is only relevant if the PPC in question is a member of POPLA);
2) the PPC may be less willing to pursue a claim against the RK if the driver is not known (and there is no RK liability) in case the RK was genuinely not driving, in which case they will presumably lose;
3) not all PPCs assert in claims that the RK was driving, in which case there is no need to make any admissions, (and at least some judges take the view that it would then be for the PPC to prove the point, again assuming there is indeed no RK liability) and;
4) in the case of defeat where the defendant is adjudged to be liable as RK, some judges will accept the point that the PoFA statute limits the amount that may be claimed against the RK as RK to the amount of the original parking charge and direct court costs (that is to say, dismissing claims for inflated or fictional "administration costs").

Lying at any stage of proceedings to anyone, failing to comply with the CPR, or refusing to answer questions from a judge, are all very strongly advised against.

Although it is clearly not the case with this OP, I see no reason why a hypothetical RK who genuinely doesn't know who was driving at the time of the incident in question to "neither admit nor deny" the allegation of driving in a statement of defence.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 03:49
Post #1528644

Not sure why "International" is between inverted comma's?

Posted by: anon45 Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 07:38
Post #1528654

I've edit my post to correct my error, and to reflect my opinion of the level of independence of their appeal system- the one that guarantees to reject 85% of all appeals. Come to think of it, it's not exactly international, either.

Posted by: Steve_999 Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 10:34
Post #1528881

"comma's"?

Or do you perhaps mean plural?

Posted by: The Rookie Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 10:42
Post #1528883

I did.......