Neighbor breaching restrictive covenant

unforeseen

kinger101 wrote: »

Not quite. There needs to be an intention to immobilize the vehicle when doing this. So carelessly parking in a way which merely blocks someones drive while dropping someone off would fall within this.

The law was drafted with clamping in mind.

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

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

according to the poster the intention WAS to prevent them moving the vehicle. Forcing them to ask and then making them wait until they were ready to move. So intention was there

When requests not to park there , pointing out it was community centre users, were ignored our trainer parked behind the offending vehicle, preventing him getting out.

kinger101

unforeseen wrote: »

according to the poster the intention WAS to prevent them moving the vehicle. Forcing them to ask and then making them wait until they were ready to move. So intention was there

Crossed wires.....I thought you were referring to the Child Minder's clients. Yes, OP blocking people in as retaliation would be intentional. At the same time though, I cannot see the criminal justice system getting involved (until it gets to fistycuffs).

Davesnave

kinger101 wrote: »

At the same time though, I cannot see the criminal justice system getting involved (until it gets to fistycuffs).

That was my point; it's not likely to get anyone a criminal record.

I can't recommend it, though. I did it once with deliberate intent to cause inconvenience, but keeping a lorry with scaffolders in it away from the pub for just 5 minutes on a Friday night, proved more stressful than it was worth in making a point!:rotfl: