One way traffic spikes |
One way traffic spikes |
Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 16:38
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 16:38
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:31
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,705 Joined: 20 May 2004 From: Lincolnshire Member No.: 1,224 |
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 Rather less warning at this one, the blue car's back wheels are on top of the spikes. |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:49
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,567 |
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. Is it only negligence if the council intentionally installs a device that was designed to cause damage to property? |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:38
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 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 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. For instance, had the gate been closed and someone drove into it, there would be no question of whose fault it was. But if only a dark chain in a dark entry, less cut and dried. Here there is a not too visible device that will damage the car but seemingly no (or limited) warnings. I would not be thinking criminal damage but am thinking negligence in installing a device that is designed to damage but not including warnings that the reasonably competent driver should see. No Entry signs as a minimum IMO. |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:40
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
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 Rather less warning at this one, the blue car's back wheels are on top of the spikes. I thought that had gone? |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 14:31
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
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. POFA 2012 does forbid the scenario described by Mnementh "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!)? -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 14:58
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
POFA 2012 does forbid the scenario described by Mnementh "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!)? Depending on the circumstances. “Whatever” vs a specific example for a start. -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 15:13
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Is it only negligence if the council intentionally installs a device that was designed to cause damage to property? Obviously not. But not providing adequate warning could well be negligent regardless of the rights and wrongs of every other aspect. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 18:11
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,705 Joined: 20 May 2004 From: Lincolnshire Member No.: 1,224 |
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 Rather less warning at this one, the blue car's back wheels are on top of the spikes. I thought that had gone? It was sTill there a month ago, I was amazed it still exists. There were more warning in the correct direction than the wrong way. |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 22:15
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. Is it only negligence if the council intentionally installs a device that was designed to cause damage to property? No. The council don't install potholes for the purpose of causing injury or damage to property, but they can still get sued over them. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 08:17
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:43
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,567 |
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. Is it only negligence if the council intentionally installs a device that was designed to cause damage to property? No. The council don't install potholes for the purpose of causing injury or damage to property, but they can still get sued over them. I guess my point was why wouldn't a charge of criminal damage be sustainable? The spikes were installed with the intention of causing damage to property - if their rules weren't followed. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 10:40
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Criminal damage has to be caused by someone taking an unreasonable risk. It is obviously reasonable for a council to manage their car park in a way that protects revenue.
It would be for a court to decide if the warning signage and method were reasonable or not. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 12:22
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Criminal damage has to be caused by someone taking an unreasonable risk. It is obviously reasonable for a council to manage their car park in a way that protects revenue. It would be for a court to decide if the warning signage and method were reasonable or not. It’s not criminal damage if the ‘victim’ has consented to their property being damaged. -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 14:14
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
I guess my point was why wouldn't a charge of criminal damage be sustainable? The spikes were installed with the intention of causing damage to property - if their rules weren't followed. What about spikes, razorwire or broken glass on top of garden walls to deter intruders...are those things ( or some of them) not illegal, even with signs? |
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:05
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
I guess my point was why wouldn't a charge of criminal damage be sustainable? The spikes were installed with the intention of causing damage to property - if their rules weren't followed. What about spikes, razorwire or broken glass on top of garden walls to deter intruders...are those things ( or some of them) not illegal, even with signs? AFAIK, not illegal but can leave the property owner exposed to claims.... One web site, check accuracy as always.... https://thecrimepreventionwebsite.com/garde...nces-and-walls/ |
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:52
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I swallowed a pip today, can i sue granny smith
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 18:07
Post
#37
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
I swallowed a pip today, can i sue granny smith It depends; if it was coated with cyanide, with a warning written on the outside of the apple in 6pt type with green ink, then possibly you can. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:13
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
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 Rather less warning at this one, the blue car's back wheels are on top of the spikes. I thought that had gone? It was sTill there a month ago, I was amazed it still exists. There were more warning in the correct direction than the wrong way. That's shocking. There can't be any consent when there is no warning of damage at all and the object is "disguised" as a speed bump... --Churchmouse |
|
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:24
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
I drive past that every day and I keep forgetting to check :|
Yeah, afaik there's no immediately conspicuous no-entry signs or the like - just that blue sign that is almost covered in undergrowth EDIT: Checked, it's still there but broken; half the spikes appear to be permanently retracted This post has been edited by typefish: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 08:05 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:49 |