HELP - Neighbour just bumped into our car, bumper broken

darich

PsiDOC wrote: »

Err not quite.
Private property is private property. If a road or cul de sac, car park area or whatever is not classified as an adopted road and maintained by the council then it's private property and is not subject to the road traffic acts in any way.
How do I know this? I lived in a road that was partially adopted and had to pay a partial maintenance charge for the rest. The bonus of this was I was able to park my non road legal off road trialer in the non adpoted resident's car park outside the house without any problems from H.M constabulary.

Psi

you may have been able to park it but it must still have insurance.
See my post above for quote from RTA 1988.

Sainsbury's car park is private property and not subject to council maintenance, but try driving around in one with no insurance and see how long it is before the cops charge you.

darich

mcjordi wrote: »

its called the road traffic act..

basically if the public can gain unrestricted access then RTA applies

ungated parking place= rta applies

key access/resident access only= rta MAY not apply

I think it would still apply because you'd have several flat owners driving about in there - gated/keyed or not I still think insurance would be required.
What if someone knocked a resident over?
What happens if two cars are bumped together?
What if someone drove into the building causing structural damage or damaged the fence/gate?

I'd say insurance is still required even if access was restricted.

adouglasmhor

Does the annotation F1 not mean it's a proposed and not extand piece of legislation?

LandyAndy

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

I hate to correct you but it probably is.

Thank you for that.:D

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

darich

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Does the annotation F1 not mean it's a proposed and not extand piece of legislation?

It refers to previously inserted words (April 2000)

Link to made up law

darich

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

I hate to correct you but it probably is.

Best post of the thread so far.
:):)

mcjordi

darich wrote: »

I think it would still apply because you'd have several flat owners driving about in there - gated/keyed or not I still think insurance would be required.
What if someone knocked a resident over?
What happens if two cars are bumped together?
What if someone drove into the building causing structural damage or damaged the fence/gate?

I'd say insurance is still required even if access was restricted.

yeah hence the MAY not apply;)

Gene_Hunt_2

darich wrote: »

I think you'll find this is incorrect. If it's an area where other people can walk, gather, drive and there is other property, then I think a minimum of 3rd party insurance is required to cover any injuries or property damage.

Private lot, aka private with no public access. Read my whole post I said clarification was needed by the OP not someone guessing.

adouglasmhor

darich wrote: »

It refers to previously inserted words (April 2000)

Link to made up law

Fair enough, in this case the law was made up by the lawmakers and not you so I withdraw your worship

27col

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

I hate to correct you but it probably is.

I hate to correct you but it probably isn't.