Parking outside your house....

Chippy_Minton_2

dizzybuff wrote: »

Criminal damage . Hmmmmmmm great way to solve a problem that a petition to the council could solve.

Where's the criminal damage?


http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/vandalism01g.pdf

juliescot

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Why not? Would you park where its possible to get clamped? Not many would.

But of course all the savvy MSE users would know that clamping such as this is illegal, as they would doubtless have read the parking threads on here;)

DaveF327

The_Wall wrote: »

Friend of mine is a driving instructor, and he has been told off for parking outside someone's house whilst getting the learner to do a hill start. So they weren't even staying.

So it's not just me that's had experience of some really anal people. Once, I stopped my car while waiting for someone on a totally empty road of terraced houses. No dropped kerbs, no driveways. No other parked cars on the whole street. A car comes racing up behind me, parks right on my rear bumper, keeps his engine running and the scummy driver just glares at me in my mirror. A minute later, scummy passenger gets out, knocks on my window and without a "please" or "thank you" waves her hand and tells me to "move up a bit!". I give her a puzzled look, comply with her request, then notice the car move up one car length into my previous spot. Scumbags then get out, glare at me again and walk into their council house. The whole street was empty, !!!!!!!! :mad:

RobertoMoir

juliescot wrote: »

What would the message be in this case? Illegal clampers operating?

As private clampers are a dubious thing at best anyway, the mind boggles at the correct term to describe efforts to pretend to be them. Pretend pretend traffic wardens?

RobertoMoir

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Where's the criminal damage?


http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/vandalism01g.pdf

<rant>
Got to love that document *sigh*

"Criminal damage, a term used interchangeably with
vandalism, refers to crimes where any person without
lawful excuse intentionally or recklessly destroys or
damages any property belonging to another. Activities
resulting in non-permanent damage (i.e. that can be
rectified, cleaned off or removed at no cost) such as
letting down car tyres, should not be classed as criminal
damage; nor should accidental damage. "

So chavs come along and scratch my car's paintwork, costing me several hundreds of pounds to repair (and this is about as likely to happen as letting the air out of tyres these days). But hey, its not criminal damage, after all it can be rectified. Where does it stop? Can I knock someone's house down without it being criminal damage? After all, a few builders, a few bricks, a few tens of thousands of pounds and its all "rectified".

This brings us to their motto at the bottom of the page: "Let's keep crime down"
Good idea there chaps, but I didn't think that meant re-classifying criminal damage as not criminal damage.

This country really is going to the dogs. </rant>

Chippy_Minton_2

[QUOTE=RobertoMoir;26725225So_chavs_come_along_and_scratch_my_car's_paintwork,_costing_me_several_hundreds_of_pounds_to_repair_(and_this_is_about_as_likely_to_happen_as_letting_the_air_out_of_tyres_these_days)._But_hey,_its_not_criminal_damage[/QUOTE]

Your example is clearly criminal damage.

dizzybuff

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Where's the criminal damage?


http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/vandalism01g.pdf

The damage is the tyres.. Yes they can be replaced but they cost the owner to replace.- in law its classified as such as it has to cost the owner to rectify.

What would you put it down as . Anyhoo all dependant on the type of car , recently there has been cases of 4x4s having their tyres let down (no damage to the trye) and this was seen as damage due to the underlying weight of the car and the fact that damage could have been done to the suspention or chasset.

So I take it is someone slashed your tyres you would just say ohh no damage there and not want a crime number ... hmmmmm:rolleyes:

RobertoMoir

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Your example is clearly criminal damage.

Oh I'd agree, but if we're interpreting the document you linked to literally, it does say that if damage to something can be rectified then it isn't criminal damage, and it actually includes the word "destroy", so my obviously OTT house thing arguably falls within its remit.

Not having a go at you for posting it, just trying to show how daft documents like that are.

Perhaps staying on topic for a moment; if you let someone's tyres down then perhaps that isn't criminal damage. But there's a possibility their rims could be damaged, which is.

wuckfit

Roberto, it says "at no cost". clearly a re-spray would come at a considerable cost. hence it is criminal damage.

RobertoMoir

wuckfit wrote: »

Roberto, it says "at no cost". clearly a re-spray would come at a considerable cost. hence it is criminal damage.

Ah.. missed that.

Mind you, if I have to buy an air pump, isn't that a cost?