We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Parking problems on private land
Comments
-
I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion that case you linked to doesn't actually refute anything I have written.
Section 55, the ammendement to Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to cover other land, rather than just road, gives you a much better chance of having them towed though.0 -
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.
Indeedy, which is why I foresaw some interesting court cases!Je suis Charlie.0 -
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 ?
Indeed, they would have to prove an actual loss, not a notional loss based on average spend.
Can you imagine what it would do to contract law in general if the latter were a valid argument?Je suis Charlie.0 -
LincolnshireYokel wrote: »OFF TOPIC:
Thats interesting. One of my ancestors insured and repaired agricultural equipment in the early 19th century, the building where he had a blacksmith shop in 1828 still exists in Lincoln.
We have JUST returned from LINCOLN after the Bank Hol weekend! :j
Had a wedding at The Charlotte House Hotel ( sounds more 'grand' than it really is, IMO) , but Lincoln was lovely and we visited the Lincolnshire Life Museum so saw lots of agricultural machines!.... pity about the weather though.
Sorry its off topic..:D0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards