Liability for damage to car in uni carpark

AnneH1957

My son's car was broken into while parked in the university car park, the side window was broken and his satnav taken from the glove box. The car was in full view of the CCTV camera, and there was a large sign saying '24 hour CCTV provided for your safety and security'. However, when he went to report this to the Security Guard (who incidentally didn't even leave his office to inspect the damage), he was told that the CCTV camera had been broken for 2 weeks. He was then referred to another sign, the usual disclaimer that 'cars are parked at your own risk...no responsibility accepted for any damage howsoever caused, etc'.

We have written to Facilities Management arguing that if CCTV is 'advertised' then it should be in working order, and as it was known to be broken, at the very least regular patrols of the car park should have been made. Their reply merely reiterated the disclaimer notice and said that CCTV was there to reduce risk, but 'cannot eliminate it or guarantee that all incidents would be captured on the CCTV'. Given that it was not working, it is guaranteed that no incidents would be captured on it! But if it had been working, since the car was in full view and the camera was static, it seems virtually certain that the incident would have been on film, and there might have been a chance of identifying the culprits.

We were told that the Security Officer 'does not leave the Control Room' (what on earth does he do there all day, especially if the CCTV is broken?) but the car parks are patrolled by operatives 'randomly' throughout the day. My son was there over 2 hours waiting for the police and there were no such patrols.

Does anyone know where we stand on this? What is the legal validity of these disclaimer notices? Surely the university has a duty of care, particularly as my son had a parking permit, for which he pays a fee, and he also paid for a pay and display ticket. Advice gratefully received, as the excess on the glass repair and a new satnav have set him back over £200, which as a student he can't afford!

DaveF327

I'll let the legal eagles comment on liability, but at the very least, he should demand a refund of the permit fee as some of the advantage gained from it has been negated.

maninthestreet

AnneH1957 wrote: »

My son's car was broken into while parked in the university car park, the side window was broken and his satnav taken from the glove box. The car was in full view of the CCTV camera, and there was a large sign saying '24 hour CCTV provided for your safety and security'. However, when he went to report this to the Security Guard (who incidentally didn't even leave his office to inspect the damage), he was told that the CCTV camera had been broken for 2 weeks. He was then referred to another sign, the usual disclaimer that 'cars are parked at your own risk...no responsibility accepted for any damage howsoever caused, etc'.

We have written to Facilities Management arguing that if CCTV is 'advertised' then it should be in working order, and as it was known to be broken, at the very least regular patrols of the car park should have been made. Their reply merely reiterated the disclaimer notice and said that CCTV was there to reduce risk, but 'cannot eliminate it or guarantee that all incidents would be captured on the CCTV'. Given that it was not working, it is guaranteed that no incidents would be captured on it! But if it had been working, since the car was in full view and the camera was static, it seems virtually certain that the incident would have been on film, and there might have been a chance of identifying the culprits.

We were told that the Security Officer 'does not leave the Control Room' (what on earth does he do there all day, especially if the CCTV is broken?) but the car parks are patrolled by operatives 'randomly' throughout the day. My son was there over 2 hours waiting for the police and there were no such patrols.

Does anyone know where we stand on this? What is the legal validity of these disclaimer notices? Surely the university has a duty of care, particularly as my son had a parking permit, for which he pays a fee, and he also paid for a pay and display ticket. Advice gratefully received, as the excess on the glass repair and a new satnav have set him back over £200, which as a student he can't afford!

Unless you can prove negligence, you are unlikely to succeed in any claim against the University.

AnneH1957

maninthestreet wrote: »

Unless you can prove negligence, you are unlikely to succeed in any claim against the University.

Surely the fact that the CCTV had been out of action for 2 weeks (and may well still be broken) is proof of negligence? I also wonder about breach of contract as the unisverity has failed to provide a service they have stated in writing to be there.

maninthestreet

AnneH1957 wrote: »

Surely the fact that the CCTV had been out of action for 2 weeks (and may well still be broken) is proof of negligence? I also wonder about breach of contract as the unisverity has failed to provide a service they have stated in writing to be there.

You entered into a contract to park there - the presence of working, monitored CCTV is extremely unlikely to form part of that contract, nor is there likely to be any contractual obligation for the University to prevent thefts of, or from, parked vehicles.

C_Mababejive

I know its not what you want to hear but i doubt this is going anywhere.

RobertoMoir

AnneH1957 wrote: »

Surely the fact that the CCTV had been out of action for 2 weeks (and may well still be broken) is proof of negligence? I also wonder about breach of contract as the unisverity has failed to provide a service they have stated in writing to be there.

I don't see that the mere fact of it being down 2 weeks "proves" negligence. Some faults can take a considerable amount of time to trace and fix even if you're making all the effort in the world.