Parking eye won cambridge case

nobbysn*ts

Very unlikely. You can imagine the conversation. "I parked, realised I had made a mistake, came back to move it, and it had been locked in. I caused the minimum damage possible, and offered to replace the lock like for like" - post owner. "I found the car on my property, and having suffered no loss, decided the best way as a remedy for trespass was to prevent the car moving off my property" More likely the post owner gets a record for Breach of the Peace.

bazster

The post owner, if he raised the post with the intention of preventing the car being moved, would have committed an offence under POFA 2012. Doesn't alter the fact that destroying the lock is criminal damage, just as destroying a wheel clamp was criminal damage. Nor does replacing the damaged item alter the facts: the offence has already been committed.

nobbysn*ts

bazster wrote: »

The post owner, if he raised the post with the intention of preventing the car being moved, would have committed an offence under POFA 2012. Doesn't alter the fact that destroying the lock is criminal damage, just as destroying a wheel clamp was criminal damage. Nor does replacing the damaged item alter the facts: the offence has already been committed.

You reckon a post isn't a "barrier"?

The_Deep

The post owner, if he raised the post with the intention of preventing the car being moved,

I am not so sure about that. There is no one "post owner". There are however 18 flats in the block, i.e, 36 remote controls, actuating one bollard. Anyone is entitled to raise the bollard to either protect their car in their own space, or prevent others using it. Similarly with a raising arm.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

used to work in a motorfactors where our car park was small, we had deliveries via lorry frequently with pallets of batteries, exhausts and we ran frequent deliveries with our vans so always in and out through the only entrance, shoppers in the town would use our car park to get out of paying the 80p parking ticket, now we didn't mind people parking there, there was hardly any excess wear and tear due to them (more damage to the parking area was mainly caused by the lorry's and our own van drivers) it often generated sales for us as people would pop in buying parts at the end of their shop trip in town remembering thy have a bulb out or even expensive parts, once we got an engine order out it.


We had to have the gates closed after hours, due to having a waste battery bin on site, the bin had to pad locked and so did the gates, (we had a few fires started before the gates were built by stupid kids in the local area). if your car wasn't out by 5:45 we closed at 5:30 but had to till up and shut the shutters and set the alarm, this gave those who worked in town (literally a street you could walk in 10mins we were bang in the middle just off a lane to the rear of the shops so anyone working there could leave work and get to their car in mins)chance to get to their car and go before we left, if they didn't get there their car was locked in, it happened a few times, some got irate with us for locking their car in and expected us to pay their taxi fares home but as with all car parks its left at the owners risk and were not on their time if your not back it gets locked in.


so for us the penalty for parking in our car park was it got locked in if your later than 5:30.
and that wear and tear due to excess usage from the vehicle was non existent.


not one person broke the lock to get it out or damaged anything to try and remove their vehicle, but I can see why some would do such if it was a deliberate action to block in a vehicle purely to generate and invoice.

hoohoo

bazster wrote: »

The post owner, if he raised the post with the intention of preventing the car being moved, would have committed an offence under POFA 2012. Doesn't alter the fact that destroying the lock is criminal damage, just as destroying a wheel clamp was criminal damage. Nor does replacing the damaged item alter the facts: the offence has already been committed.

POFA 2012 allows a barrier to be activated if it is already there before the vehicle parked. It does not allow a new barrier to magically appear to block vehicles.

Raising an existing post is therefore ok.

nigelbb

bazster wrote: »

The post owner, if he raised the post with the intention of preventing the car being moved, would have committed an offence under POFA 2012. Doesn't alter the fact that destroying the lock is criminal damage, just as destroying a wheel clamp was criminal damage. Nor does replacing the damaged item alter the facts: the offence has already been committed.

It would NOT be an offence under POFA 2012 as it specifically allows for barriers that were present but not in operation. This could simply be raised/lowered barrier rather than a fancy electronic bollard. There is no requirement but it would be prudent to have some signs warning of the fact that the barrier may be lowered.

bazster

You all need to go back and read the law again.

POFA 2012 54(3):

But, where the restriction of the movement of the vehicle is by means of a fixed barrier and the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked, any express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of the driver of the vehicle to the restriction is, for the purposes of subsection (1), lawful authority for the restriction.

The operator of the barrier needs the driver's consent to deploy the barrier and restrict the movement of the vehicle. Where there is no consent there is no lawful authority and an offence is committed. Where the barrier is virtually invisible (e.g. by being sunk into the ground when not in use) and there is no signage the driver cannot possibly be deemed to have consented.

nigelbb

Driving through a gate or under a raised barrier would be taken as giving implied consent which as POFA states confers legal authority to subsequent closure of the gate or lowering of the barrier. If the bollard or other barrier is not so obvious then a warning sign would be necessary.

The_Deep

bazster wrote: »

You all need to go back and read the law again.

POFA 2012 54(3):

But, where the restriction of the movement of the vehicle is by means of a fixed barrier and the barrier was present (whether ... the restriction is, for the purposes of subsection (1), lawful authority for the restriction.

The operator of the barrier needs the driver's consent to deploy the barrier and restrict the movement of the vehicle. Where there is no consent there is no lawful authority and an offence is committed. Where the barrier is virtually invisible (e.g. by being sunk into the ground when not in use) and there is no signage the driver cannot possibly be deemed to have consented.

So, in my block, what you are you saying that all 36 keyholders need to obtain the consent of Scumbag before they can legitimately close the barrier to protect their property? Surely that cannot be right?