PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

One way traffic spikes
Mnementh
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 16:38
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,567



Hello everyone.

Over the weekend I saw a lady with her two young children drive into a council owned car-park next to a duck pond. The entrance side was closed so she drove into the car-park through the exit side - which had one way traffic spikes and punctured/shredded 3 out of 4 of the car's tyres.

When I went to assist she explained it was a mistake and got confused because she cross a fast road when turning in and missed the sign which was placed after the spikes.

My question is that this device left a mother and her young children effectively stranded and caused expensive damage to her car - it doesn't seem reasonable or proportionate. I'm puzzled because while googling this subject some sites claim that it's illegal to use these devices in the UK. Wouldn't they also prevent access to emergency vehicles?

Thinking about it, it seems odd that anybody is allowed to cause damage to a vehicle as penalty for driving through the wrong gate.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 16:38
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 17:21
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,152
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



This is best in the flame pit section.

is she going to complain to the council? What's the location?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 19:05
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Bit difficult to tell without a location but in general there are plenty of places it is highly unwise to drive through. There is some duty as a driver to use your eyes and avoid them. Classic one seems to be bollards in supermarkets which upsets people who fail to see a 4ft high pole.

At work we use barriers. They are on a break lock so that if someone drives through them they snap back rather than smash an expensive piece of fibreglass.

Unfortunately on a fairly frequent basis someone gets their passenger to nip out the car and break the barrier back so they skip the parking charge. Unfortunately when designing car parks you have to bear the lowest common denominator in mind. I guess it would take the council longer to notice, longer to fix and so lose revenue for longer compared to security popping out to fix it here.


--------------------
My username is notmeatloaf because I'm not made of meat loaf. I hope that clarifies things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mnementh
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 19:48
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,567



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 18:21) *
This is best in the flame pit section.

is she going to complain to the council? What's the location?


Thank you.

Here's the location: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5592095,0...3312!8i6656

I have no idea if she's going to complain. She actually pulled over to feed her baby.

There is of course signage on the floor and she should have been more careful. To me it just seemed odd that the council, or anybody is permitted to damage vehicles in this way for what is a minor civil infringement, potentially leaving vulnerable drivers in a very difficult situation. I always thought you could fine, clamp, etc, but not physically damage a vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 19:51
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,448
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



If she consented to the damage...


--------------------


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mnementh
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:04
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,567



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


Does that mean you can do whatever you like to the car, provided that you put a sign up? For example slash the tyres of a car parked across my driveway (with an appropriate warning sign!)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:33
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,152
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I presume they want to stop, er, unsavoury behaviour late at night while letting people out but it's a bit drastic for such a small spot.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:37
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,208
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


Does that mean you can do whatever you like to the car, provided that you put a sign up? For example slash the tyres of a car parked across my driveway (with an appropriate warning sign!)?

Both clamping & any other form of immobilisation is expressly forbidden by POFA 2012

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...tion/54/enacted

This post has been edited by nigelbb: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:38


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:40
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,448
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


Does that mean you can do whatever you like to the car, provided that you put a sign up? For example slash the tyres of a car parked across my driveway (with an appropriate warning sign!)?

In general, you can consent to me doing anything to your property. Whilst proving your consent to some quite drastic damage might be difficult it is possible. A decent number of signs saying, basically, "drive here at your own risk" means the driver has assumed the risk of damage and chosen to proceed.


--------------------


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:10
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,050
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:40) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


Does that mean you can do whatever you like to the car, provided that you put a sign up? For example slash the tyres of a car parked across my driveway (with an appropriate warning sign!)?

In general, you can consent to me doing anything to your property. Whilst proving your consent to some quite drastic damage might be difficult it is possible. A decent number of signs saying, basically, "drive here at your own risk" means the driver has assumed the risk of damage and chosen to proceed.

There are some limitations on that though, see Arthur & Anr -v- Anker & Anr [1997] QB 564 as quoted in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (The leading case law on clamping before the PoFA ban on clamping came in) (my emphasis):

"The judge found that Mr Arthur knew of and consented to the risk of clamping, ... I would not accept that the clamper could exact any unreasonable or exorbitant charge for releasing the car, and the court would be very slow to find implied acceptance of such a charge. The same would be true if the warning were not of clamping or towing away but of conduct by or on behalf of the land owner which would cause damage to the car."

So on that authoritative interpretation, signs saying "If you park here you consent to the land owner "keeing" your doors" wouldn't be a defence to a tort allegation.

In this case I'm not sure "drive here at your own risk" quite covers one-way traffic spikes. In my mind, "drive here at your own risk" means "if you drive here and you're unfortunate enough to damage your property, for example snapping your suspension in a pot-hole, or some other fortuitous damage occurs, tough". But installing spikes which would cause reasonably foreseeable damage to a vehicle is different, as the land owner would have taken active steps to install them and it would be reasonably foreseeable to him that persons driving on that land might suffer damage to their property. If it were my land, I would want to have a sign, to the "bound to be seen" standard as per Vine, saying "WARNING: If you drive in through the exist, severe damage may occur to your car" or words to that effect.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 09:26


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mnementh
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:33
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,567



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:37) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


Does that mean you can do whatever you like to the car, provided that you put a sign up? For example slash the tyres of a car parked across my driveway (with an appropriate warning sign!)?

Both clamping & any other form of immobilisation is expressly forbidden by POFA 2012

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...tion/54/enacted


Isn't shredding the tyres a form of immobilisation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:41
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,448
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:33) *
Isn't shredding the tyres a form of immobilisation?

"by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device"


--------------------


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 04:46
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,208
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:41) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:33) *
Isn't shredding the tyres a form of immobilisation?

"by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device"

“restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means” would cover shredding the tyres.

This post has been edited by nigelbb: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 04:47


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samthecat
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 10:03
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 303
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,881



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 05:46) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:41) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:33) *
Isn't shredding the tyres a form of immobilisation?

"by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device"

“restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means” would cover shredding the tyres.


But not the next part in that sentence.... "intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it."

Spikes are there to stop people trying to enter the car park exit not to pop their tyres and immobilize their cars.


--------------------
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 10:59
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,191
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



I'm wandering if any claim based on inadequate warning is possible?
For instance, this is what a private car park thinks is needed.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4757788,-...3312!8i6656
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mnementh
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:14
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,567



QUOTE (samthecat @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:03) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 05:46) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:41) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:33) *
Isn't shredding the tyres a form of immobilisation?

"by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device"

“restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means” would cover shredding the tyres.


But not the next part in that sentence.... "intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it."

Spikes are there to stop people trying to enter the car park exit not to pop their tyres and immobilize their cars.


Is the "intention" relevant here if the only possible outcome for not following the rules is immobilisation? I suppose it comes down to why "immobilisation" is forbidden.

Also, are there any rules as to what councils are permitted to do with regards to controlling traffic flow on public rights of way? Here it feels like using criminal damage to control traffic is a lawful strategy.

Albeit I recall councils having to reduce the size of speed humps because they were causing damage to vehicles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samthecat
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:48
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 303
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,881



It's relevant to that specific piece of legislation and is included in the wording.

With regards to the council possibly being negligent or not making the signs clear enough then intent would be largely irrelephant.


--------------------
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:01
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,050
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mnementh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:14) *
Also, are there any rules as to what councils are permitted to do with regards to controlling traffic flow on public rights of way? Here it feels like using criminal damage to control traffic is a lawful strategy.

Albeit I recall councils having to reduce the size of speed humps because they were causing damage to vehicles.

I doubt a charge of criminal damage would be sustainable, but a civil claim for negligence might succeed.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:09
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,152
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:59) *
I'm wandering if any claim based on inadequate warning is possible?
For instance, this is what a private car park thinks is needed.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4757788,-...3312!8i6656



That's what I thought from the pic - there seems to be a small sign but can't read what's on it. Such a severe obstacle should have a big warning sign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:18
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,050
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:09) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:59) *
I'm wandering if any claim based on inadequate warning is possible?
For instance, this is what a private car park thinks is needed.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4757788,-...3312!8i6656



That's what I thought from the pic - there seems to be a small sign but can't read what's on it. Such a severe obstacle should have a big warning sign.

I still think that's inadequate. It warns of legal action (which is clearly nonsense), but no warning of possible damage to one's car.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 19th August 2018 - 15:53
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.