Parking problems on private land

Half_way

you could put some signs up, and get hold of some joke parking tickets

jkdd77

cleeside wrote: »

I also like the idea of blocking people in for a bit, giving them a bit of a wait then letting them out.

Be aware that any form of 'blocking in' otherwise than by a barrier (visible at the time of entry) will become a criminal offence under section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on 1 October 2012, regardless of whether a fee is charged for removal of the obstructing device or vehicle.

bazster

jkdd77 wrote: »

Be aware that any form of 'blocking in' otherwise than by a barrier (visible at the time of entry) will become a criminal offence under section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on 1 October 2012, regardless of whether a fee is charged for removal of the obstructing device or vehicle.

Only if the intention is to immobilise the vehicle. If the intention is merely to park somewhere that you are entitled to park then it's not an offence.

I can forsee some interesting court cases over this!

mikey72

jkdd77 wrote: »

Be aware that any form of 'blocking in' otherwise than by a barrier (visible at the time of entry) will become a criminal offence under section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on 1 October 2012, regardless of whether a fee is charged for removal of the obstructing device or vehicle.

"intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it."

That's the key phrase, and if you park on my land, if there's no where else, I'm not going to take someone else's place, I'll park behind you.
I don't intend to prevent you leaving, or inhibiting you, when I move again you're welcome to go.
Equally, if it's been left clear as I'm having a ton of hardcore delivered, it'll go behind you, and you're more than welcome to barrow it round the back for me. or wait for me.

mikey72

Doesn't always work though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad4OfGOpNZ4

Bet they're sorry the blocked the road roller in.

jkdd77

bazster wrote: »

Only if the intention is to immobilise the vehicle. If the intention is merely to park somewhere that you are entitled to park then it's not an offence.

I can forsee some interesting court cases over this!

As it happens, I agree with you, and apologise for not making the requirement for "intent" clear in my original post; however there remains a potential risk, in my view, that the police will demand that the 'obstructing' vehicle be moved, or even arrest for the section 54 offence regardless. This is because, at the moment, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty exactly how the law will be interpreted in practice by the police, or in how the courts will interpret the requirement for "intent to restrict the movement of the vehicle" in this context.

As with the consensus on the recent thread on the potential criminality of providing false driver details to PPCs [the consensus is that it probably is an offence], it may be safer to err on the side of caution.

cleeside

bazster wrote: »

Only if the intention is to immobilise the vehicle. If the intention is merely to park somewhere that you are entitled to park then it's not an offence.

In the past I have done quite a bit of work for a large national utility company and they have advised their field based staff and contractors to park on the public road whenever practical. Several members of their staff have had their vans blocked in by irrate customers saying things like "you're not going anywhere till you fix it" kind of thing. It maybe that they also have this in mind with the new law.

cleeside

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

For a lesson on how not to try to argue this in a court, read this ..

I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion that case you linked to doesn't actually refute anything I have written.

mikey72

jkdd77 wrote: »

As it happens, I agree with you, and apologise for not making the requirement for "intent" clear in my original post; however there remains a potential risk, in my view, that the police will demand that the 'obstructing' vehicle be moved, or even arrest for the section 54 offence regardless. This is because, at the moment, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty exactly how the law will be interpreted in practice by the police, or in how the courts will interpret the requirement for "intent to restrict the movement of the vehicle" in this context.

As with the consensus on the recent thread on the potential criminality of providing false driver details to PPCs [the consensus is that it probably is an offence], it may be safer to err on the side of caution.

Or far more likely, the police will say it's a civil matter on private land.

taffy056

cleeside wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion that case you linked to doesn't actually refute anything I have written.

Actually it does, as it discusses a loss and the fact that the parking company can't prove one, the same will be for a supermarket. They will have an extremely difficult task in proving that specific vehicle parked at that exact specific time caused a loss. They would actually require proof of that in court, so how do they do that ?