SORTED - Supermarket scrape - what will happen next?

split_second

we were talking about a similar situation we were in the other week, went to a supermarket on an out of town shopping centre about 10 miles away, there are 2 entrances, one that is supposed to be used and a sort of unofficial one.

my car is dark blue and 9 years old, because it has spent 7 1/2 of those years in supermarket car parks, multi story car parks and the like it has a few scratches on it, mainly cos on supermarket car parks it happens. anyway we went in this particular shop, did our shopping and came out, as we were getting in the car two very obnoxious pcso's started implying me and my fiance were liars as when we were asked which entrance we used we said the one we had (the correct one) and the route we came which meant we were in the right and nowhere near the affected car.
this retail park is huge, much bigger than any closer to home and apparently we were the only dark blue car they could see (i looked around and saw about 8 without even trying)

about a month later despite giving all details we havent heard anything so looks like its obvious we were innocent, hope the people that did it got similar treatment to us when questioned

The_Turner

Jakg wrote: »

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



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.

Unimpeded has nothing to do with it, as the act mentions by payment or otherwise. Even with a barrier it can still be classed as a public place.

forgotmyname

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.

WRONG... as jakg mentions.

A guy from my old works got done for drink driving after reversing a vehicle out of the warehouse and hitting a car parked outside.

Ungated access and public access. He got done and lost his job.


Another company had to fit gates and a private property no access signs when a dozy woman who was lost decided to do a 3 point turn and hit a forklift parked up outside.

Boss spoke to her and she drove off unhappy. But must have got legal advice and came back asking for insurance details.

It was a case of fitting gates or having tax and insurance on the forklifts.

Rover_Driver

s.170, Road Traffic Act 1988:

Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.
Where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, an accident occurs by which—
(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that mechanically propelled vehicle, or
(b)damage is caused—
(i)to a vehicle other than that mechanically propelled vehicle or a trailer drawn by that mechanically propelled vehicle.

Nothing about gates, barriers, unimpeded access, payment etc. - if it is a public place, the relevant part of the act applies.

QuackQuack_2

Rover_Driver wrote: »

s.170, Road Traffic Act 1988:

...
Nothing about gates, barriers, unimpeded access, payment etc. - if it is a public place, the relevant part of the act applies.

But it's not, it's a private place that the public have limited access to. At any point the land owner can ask you to leave, or erect barriers etc to physically impede access and that is their absolute right. At the moment, they can even clamp you if they so chose - something I don't believe you can do in a 'public' place? (IANAL).

Naturally if anyone knows of a specific legal case that sets a precedent for failing to stop / exchange details for an accident on private ground I'd be really interested to read it. This kind of thing is just one.

None of this makes it morally right to damage the property of others in a supermarket car park - but I think in many cases you'll find yourself urinating into the wind trying to push for prosecution of any kind if it happens.

Rover_Driver

QuackQuack wrote: »

But it's not, it's a private place that the public have limited access to. At any point the land owner can ask you to leave, or erect barriers etc to physically impede access and that is their absolute right. At the moment, they can even clamp you if they so chose - something I don't believe you can do in a 'public' place? (IANAL).

Naturally if anyone knows of a specific legal case that sets a precedent for failing to stop / exchange details for an accident on private ground I'd be really interested to read it. This kind of thing is just one.

None of this makes it morally right to damage the property of others in a supermarket car park - but I think in many cases you'll find yourself urinating into the wind trying to push for prosecution of any kind if it happens.

Within the meaning of the RTA 1988, a public place is considered to be a place with public access, although it may be privately owned - a supermarket car park when it is open to the public is a classic example.

QuackQuack_2

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Within the meaning of the RTA 1988, a public place is considered to be a place with public access, although it may be privately owned - a supermarket car park when it is open to the public is a classic example.

Can you cite that at all? Can you give a specific case in law where this has been tested and a precedent set?

I know a few years ago my solicitor was not able to do so and a car park prang in my local Asda car park was considered to be 'in a private place' and therefore no offence committed when the other party made off without leaving details or reporting the accident.

Since that point a precedent may have been set or things may have been clarified - I'd be genuinely interested to see where a judge has made a decision on it.

The_Turner

QuackQuack wrote: »

Can you cite that at all? Can you give a specific case in law where this has been tested and a precedent set?

I know a few years ago my solicitor was not able to do so and a car park prang in my local Asda car park was considered to be 'in a private place' and therefore no offence committed when the other party made off without leaving details or reporting the accident.

Since that point a precedent may have been set or things may have been clarified - I'd be genuinely interested to see where a judge has made a decision on it.

Yes, its called the road traffic act.

QuackQuack_2

The_Turner wrote: »

Yes, its called the road traffic act.

Problem is men better than you (and they are not at all difficult to find) don't see it quite so black and white - you can dig around and find various cases that say sections of the RTA apply to 'car parks', but good luck enforcing it. This one - where an uninsured driver hit another car in a car park - appears, as far as I understand it, to suggest that section 145(3) (at least) did not apply in a car park.

Bowman v DPP
House of Lords decision
Save in exceptional circumstances, a car park would not qualify as a "road" for the purposes of section 145(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 so as to be an area in respect of which a motor insurance policy had to provide cover.

Naturally, if one can afford to go as far as the Lords for a couple of hundred quids worth of damage then fair play in trying. I'm pretty sure the Police are not going to be in a rush to do it given the potential costs.

There are other cases that two-and-fro this a bit, and the notion of 'a public place' seems relatively untested as far as I can find.

I would add that I don't necessarily think it's a good thing that car parks, which at first appear to fall under the auspices of 'a public place', could potentially be lawless places where damage can be done without giving a damn.

This makes an interesting starting point and tends to initially support that a car park is a public place, but it is then contradicted by the Law Lords who tend to be more focused on the word 'road'.

Public Place under the Road Traffic Act

In order for it to be proven that somewhere is a "Public Place" for the purposes of road traffic offences it must be shown by the prosecution that:

Those people who are admitted to the place in question are members of the public and are admitted as such, not as members of some special or particular class of the public (eg people belonging to an exclusive club i.e. lane leading to a Rugby Club and used only by them) or as a result of some special characteristic that is not shared by the public at large, and;

Those people are so admitted with the permission, express or implied, of the owner of the land in question.

(DPP v Vivier [1991]RTR 205)

Places that have stated cases that show them to be public places are:

1. A privately-owned Caravan site open to campers (DDP v Vivier [1991] RTR 205)

2. A school playground used outside of school hours as a leisure park by members of the public (Rodger v Normand 1994 SCCR 861)

3. The "Inward Freight Immigration Lanes" at Dover Eastern Docks (DPP v Coulman [1993] RTR 230)

4. A field used in connection with an agricultural show but only while the show is open to the public) (Paterson v Ogilvey 1957 SLT 354)

5. A Multi Storey car park (Bowman v DPP [1991] RTR 263)

A car park situated within the business premises of a motor dealer for use by customers has been held to be a public place as members of the public using the car park did not cease to be members of the public and become a special class of persons merely because they used the car park as customers. [May v DPP [2005] EWHC 1280].

As I have said under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it was offence to use, or to cause or permit someone to use, a motor vehicle on a road unless its use is covered by an appropriate policy of insurance or security . "Road" is defined in section 192(1) of the 1988 Act, in relation to England and Wales, as any highway or other road to which the public has access and, in relation to Scotland, as any road or other way to which the public has access.

On the basis of this an appeal Court held that a supermarket car park was a road but this was later rejected by the House of Lords In the case of Cutter v. Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd, [1998] 4 All ER 417, it was held by the House of Lords that the expression did not include a car park or similar public place.

Likewise in Clarke v Kato and Others [1998]:-

Save exceptionally, a car park is not a road for the purposes of road traffic legislation on obligatory insurance. It is an unjustified strain on the language. A distinction made between the road ways and the parking bays was artificial and unhelpful. Whether any particular area was a road is a question of fact in each case. "In the generality of the matter it seems to me that in the ordinary use of language a car park does not so qualify. In character and more especially in function they are distinct. It is of course possible to park on a road, but that does not mean that the road is a car park. Correspondingly one can drive from one point to another over a car park, but that does not mean that the route which has been taken is a road. It is here that the distinction in function between road and car park is of importance. The proper function of a road is to enable movement along it to a destination. Incidentally a vehicle on it may be stationary. One can use a road for parking

But in both cases they are a 'public place' and highlighted that certain impunity arose when driving off road in a public place amongst members of the public as far as Insurance and certain other offences were concerned.

So, in their wisdom TPTB brought in firstly:

The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000 which amended the RT Act and after the term 'road' added 'or other public place'

Other similar enactments have added the term to other offences.

When considering offences under RT Acts one has to make sure it either applies to road only or both. Nevertheless at the end of the day it will be for the Magistrates to decide whether it is a 'road' or 'public place'.

And given that neither you or I are a magistrate, it's down to nothing more than good old fashioned experience mixed with forum opinion and banter.......

QuackQuack_2

I wonder how this would pan out. Suppose a motor repair shop had a reasonable size car park and this was deemed to be 'a public place'. The owner of this car park kept upon it a number of unroadworthy vehicles awaiting repair. These were driven around said car park to gain access to the workshop. Would that not be illegal under the RTA if that car park was considered a 'public place' and within it's jurisdiction?