SORTED - Supermarket scrape - what will happen next?

robbies_gal

quack dont know why the police said tit doesnt apply to suerpmarket car parks they were prob just busy that day because it does

i done it myself left the details with a tesco attendant who said they would pass it on and then had the police round saying i should have stayed till the person came out the shop because id already phoned my insurance about it they were ok but said never to drive off

mikey72

cubegame wrote: »

In fairness to the OP and the relatively sanctimonious rantings on here one's attitude to this kind of situation does depend on the attitude to their own car.

If you consider a car as merely a bit of metal which gets you from A to B (which to my mind is more sensible than considering it as a fashion accessory) then you're hardly going to not apply the same approach to others. Therefore a cursory check to evaluate the damage (showing it as being minor) is to my mind acceptable.

Do people on this forum really expect the police to be involved for everything? If a car in front slings up a stone and chips your car perhaps? Or if someone nudges your bumper while getting out of a tight space?

I entirely agree.
To me a house is just somewhere you sleep, not something you fill full of possessions. I can never understand when the police need to be involved if me and my mates nip round and steal everything, so long as we leave the bed, and a bit of food in the fridge.
Same with a bit of a mugging, if they look like they don't need it, why involve the police if you only take what you think they don't need.

It's torching the car after joyriding I think is over the top though, if you just leave it, they can always get it fixed up and use it again.

QuackQuack_2

gabbyevs wrote: »

quack dont know why the police said tit doesnt apply to suerpmarket car parksf

Because it was private property with public access. Even had a solicitor prod them with it.

If the Council had have owned it, apparently, that would have been a different thing. There is a subtle difference between a public place and a private place the public have limited access to.

There will be a fine distinction somewhere in law, it won't apply to every situation, but as far as my local Asda was concerned, the car park was effectively 'private land'.

With that in mind I guess if you drove a unroadworthy vehicle around it, with no insurance or tax - and perhaps not even a driving licence, there would be diddly squat anyone could do about it - other than the land owner.

TrickyWicky

I think what quack and the other guy need to realise is this - you're both right and you're both wrong:

It's private property with public access. That makes it a public 'place' however not a public 'highway' and its therefore not covered by the highway code unless the RTA specifically says so. However that doesn't mean you can just drive off if your car damages someone elses, it's still damage and can still be reported as a criminal act of damage. The police are notorious for wriggling out of responsibilities they can't be bothered with, I think we all know that.

The_Turner

TrickyWicky wrote: »

I think what quack and the other guy need to realise is this - you're both right and you're both wrong:

It's private property with public access. That makes it a public 'place' however not a public 'highway' and its therefore not covered by the highway code unless the RTA specifically says so. However that doesn't mean you can just drive off if your car damages someone elses, it's still damage and can still be reported as a criminal act of damage. The police are notorious for wriggling out of responsibilities they can't be bothered with, I think we all know that.

That would be criminal damage you speak of?

It therefore must either be willful or reckless, not accidental.

Yorkie1

TrickyWicky wrote: »

I think what quack and the other guy need to realise is this - you're both right and you're both wrong:

It's private property with public access. That makes it a public 'place' however not a public 'highway' and its therefore not covered by the highway code unless the RTA specifically says so. However that doesn't mean you can just drive off if your car damages someone elses, it's still damage and can still be reported as a criminal act of damage. The police are notorious for wriggling out of responsibilities they can't be bothered with, I think we all know that.

TrickyWicky is right here. A public place is a place to which the public have access. It can be privately owned so long as at the material time, the public have access.

The RTA states that s.170 applies to public places and therefore, so long as the public had access to the supermarket car park at the relevant time, the law states that you can't just drive off or you are liable for prosecution under s.170.

Don't rely on the police knowing the details of the law (also this is pretty basic).

I had a friend who was very badly injured by a taxi driver who forced her off the road. The police said no offence committed as there was no physical contact between the two of them. This is legally incorrect.

The_Turner

Yorkie1 wrote: »

TrickyWicky is right here. A public place is a place to which the public have access. It can be privately owned so long as at the material time, the public have access.

The RTA states that s.170 applies to public places and therefore, so long as the public had access to the supermarket car park at the relevant time, the law states that you can't just drive off or you are liable for prosecution under s.170.

Don't rely on the police knowing the details of the law (also this is pretty basic).

I had a friend who was very badly injured by a taxi driver who forced her off the road. The police said no offence committed as there was no physical contact between the two of them. This is legally incorrect.

There may not have been any offences but there was a reportable collision.

WhiteHorse

QuackQuack wrote: »

... the Police took the view that it was 'private' land stating that whilst the owner allows the public to use it, it is private property and they do so at their own risk.

That has always been the police view.

cyclonebri1

QuackQuack wrote: »

Of course it's not, or people would have to remain at the scene all their lives :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Wordplay to one side, I'm not sure that this extends to private property like a shop car park - only the 'highway' as such.

Well the original quote that you did is correct, it's not an offence simply to leave the scene.
But it is an offence not to stop and exchange details with any involved party, (if someone is injured), otherwise it has to be reported to the police asap.


The last bit is where the OP's relative has failed, the road traffic act applies to all public places, including supermarket car parks.

Jakg

wazza wrote: »

He passed his test over a year ago and did not know that he should at least leave his details under the windscreen wiper or inform the customer service etc.

Really? He just assumed that normally when you damage someones property, the right thing to do is just drive away?

QuackQuack wrote: »

When my trusty old Astra was pranged in the local Asda car park with the offender made off without leaving details, the Police took the view that it was 'private' land stating that whilst the owner allows the public to use it, it is private property and they do so at their own risk.

Under the RTA, "private property" can still be a "public road" - i.e. if you can drive, unimpeded, from the road into a car park, you can't drive drunk or without insurance etc.