Effective & legal ways of preventing parking in my car park?
Discussion
wibblebrain said:
LoonR1 said:
Really? The police aren't interested in criminal damage? If so smash his van up, the police won't be interested. If that's too much for you, then block him in over and over again, after all the police won't be interested from what you've said.
They are probably not interested in criminal damage if there's no obvious way to prove who the culprit is. Hence the CCTV suggestion......julian64 said:
wibblebrain said:
LoonR1 said:
Really? The police aren't interested in criminal damage? If so smash his van up, the police won't be interested. If that's too much for you, then block him in over and over again, after all the police won't be interested from what you've said.
They are probably not interested in criminal damage if there's no obvious way to prove who the culprit is. Hence the CCTV suggestion......LoonR1 said:
julian64 said:
wibblebrain said:
LoonR1 said:
Really? The police aren't interested in criminal damage? If so smash his van up, the police won't be interested. If that's too much for you, then block him in over and over again, after all the police won't be interested from what you've said.
They are probably not interested in criminal damage if there's no obvious way to prove who the culprit is. Hence the CCTV suggestion......dancole90 said:
blueg33 said:
Protection of Freedoms Act (or whatever its called)
Yes that's the one,, as stated on countless threads like this. However, surely there is a loophole/exceptions of sorts like this?
They have knowingly parked there on private land, and there will be signs in front of them stating the car park will be locked. Its not someone playing clever buggers using a car or skip to prove a point, its something which is done everyday regardless, securing the premises. If left, it leaves several vans at a higher risk, who's insurance states they are on a locked private carpark at night, and the entrance to the building is within the car park.
He plans to use these signs on the wall infront of each space saying private parking, owners risk and that it will be locked, again so it can be seen as you're walking back out the carpark. And if someone is locked in he wants to leave a notice on the gate stating it will be opened backup at 7am the following day (except sundays)
CCTV would even show the routine every day so show it wasn't a one off to trap the car.
julian64 said:
My twenty space car park intended for employees is regularly used by anoyone who doesn't want to pay the fees in the multistory car park opposite, and there seems bugger all that can be done about it.
We put up a very expensive barrier, it was snapped in two within twenty four hours, police not interested.
We used an outside clamping firm which people just ignored.
When a particular perpetrator with his van was identified being a neighbour a few doors down from the site. He was sent a letter politely asking him not to park there. Within a week we had a brick thrown through the windows of the property. He still parks in the car park, becomes abusive if anyone approaches him and makes mild inference to how many windows will it take to make his point. Police not interested
Floor barriers are an option but would soon be vandalised. Furthermore a recent inspection by a surveyor for rent reasons and confirmation by accounts suggest that if you restrict the use of a privately owned car park to staff only, you become liable for its percieved benefit to their salaries. In effect you have to pay the government a fee for just owning it.
So I have a good deal of sympathy with the op, because there seems no way to restrict the use of a private carpark legally.
How about those floor spikes that you can raise and lower with a button inside your premises? Signs to point out that they are there and that the car park is private property, just lower them when your staff enter and leave? If they are actually situated inside your perimeter surely you can't be held accountable for damage to people trying to drive in?We put up a very expensive barrier, it was snapped in two within twenty four hours, police not interested.
We used an outside clamping firm which people just ignored.
When a particular perpetrator with his van was identified being a neighbour a few doors down from the site. He was sent a letter politely asking him not to park there. Within a week we had a brick thrown through the windows of the property. He still parks in the car park, becomes abusive if anyone approaches him and makes mild inference to how many windows will it take to make his point. Police not interested
Floor barriers are an option but would soon be vandalised. Furthermore a recent inspection by a surveyor for rent reasons and confirmation by accounts suggest that if you restrict the use of a privately owned car park to staff only, you become liable for its percieved benefit to their salaries. In effect you have to pay the government a fee for just owning it.
So I have a good deal of sympathy with the op, because there seems no way to restrict the use of a private carpark legally.
Zoobeef said:
Last man to get to work use their car to block the entrance?
Obviously making sure there's no random people already in the car park.
Surely this is the best way to go about it, first person in blocks it and so on until last person turns up and there car stays there all day. Obviously making sure there's no random people already in the car park.
(broke down)
REALIST123 said:
LoonR1 said:
julian64 said:
wibblebrain said:
LoonR1 said:
Really? The police aren't interested in criminal damage? If so smash his van up, the police won't be interested. If that's too much for you, then block him in over and over again, after all the police won't be interested from what you've said.
They are probably not interested in criminal damage if there's no obvious way to prove who the culprit is. Hence the CCTV suggestion......What could possibly go wrong?
julian64 said:
REALIST123 said:
LoonR1 said:
julian64 said:
wibblebrain said:
LoonR1 said:
Really? The police aren't interested in criminal damage? If so smash his van up, the police won't be interested. If that's too much for you, then block him in over and over again, after all the police won't be interested from what you've said.
They are probably not interested in criminal damage if there's no obvious way to prove who the culprit is. Hence the CCTV suggestion......What could possibly go wrong?
Afromonk said:
I'd be hugely tempted to put a brick through his van windows, but not on your property obviously 
Obviously the same vandals that have been putting the property windows in!Seriously, a million pound business should be able to afford a proper barrier and CCTV.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Thursday 28th August 00:55
LoonR1 said:
Clearly you are a capitalist and a goatee sporting, red bull drinking director which is the epitome of a PHer. However, you have crossed the line by suggesting people don't have the right to park wherever they like whenever they like.
All you have to do is take a look at the amount of threads where people have parked on private land and received a fine / penalty / invoice and the amount of support and advice they receive.
People (me included) seek advice when money is extorted from them by cowboy operations.All you have to do is take a look at the amount of threads where people have parked on private land and received a fine / penalty / invoice and the amount of support and advice they receive.
I"m fine with private land being charged for, but not an excuse to issue extortionate fines.
In my case for example, I paid for a parking space but parked in the wrong type of space. The definition of the wrong type of space was in 5mm letters on a sign by the entrance, but fixed so that it could not be read when entering.
julian64 said:
Furthermore a recent inspection by a surveyor for rent reasons and confirmation by accounts suggest that if you restrict the use of a privately owned car park to staff only, you become liable for its percieved benefit to their salaries. In effect you have to pay the government a fee for just owning it.
So I have a good deal of sympathy with the op, because there seems no way to restrict the use of a private carpark legally.
That part is just plain wrong. You need to a top taking tax advice off your surveyor and get a better accountant. So I have a good deal of sympathy with the op, because there seems no way to restrict the use of a private carpark legally.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/payerti/exb/a-z/c/car-parki...
LoonR1 said:
blueg33 said:
As others have said. There is only one legal answer, use a barrier.
There MUST be a way to use a barrier, there are all sorts of commercial solutions available.
I the very worst buy an old banger and block the entrance yourselves. The first employee in can remove it.
Blocking parkers in is illegal
Damaging/sabotaging their vehicles is illegal
Sticking things to the vehicle the impede the drivers vision is possibly illegal, it would certainly be a contributor to a claim if an accident occurred.
No it wouldn't. There MUST be a way to use a barrier, there are all sorts of commercial solutions available.
I the very worst buy an old banger and block the entrance yourselves. The first employee in can remove it.
Blocking parkers in is illegal
Damaging/sabotaging their vehicles is illegal
Sticking things to the vehicle the impede the drivers vision is possibly illegal, it would certainly be a contributor to a claim if an accident occurred.
Further, we had similar issues at work and started gluing A3 size notices to the windscreen, we ended up taking legal advice and that advice was to avoid sticking large notices to vehicles.
For a starter there is this view
former police officer said:
S.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides that a person is guilty of criminal damage if they intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse.
Damage is not defined by the Act. The courts have construed the term liberally. Damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the court, using its common sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage.
Therefore it is arguable that attaching a large sticker with adhesive that is difficult to remove is an offence under the Act.
Damage is not defined by the Act. The courts have construed the term liberally. Damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the court, using its common sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage.
Therefore it is arguable that attaching a large sticker with adhesive that is difficult to remove is an offence under the Act.
Department of Transport said:
Front view
The specific act of placing stickers in car windows is not in itself illegal. However, it is
an offence, under regulation 30 of The Road Vehicles (Construction & Use)
Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1078), to drive a vehicle in which the glass is
maintained in such a condition that the vision of the driver is impaired.
It is also a requirement of the MOT Test that any windscreen that is damaged or
obscured to the extent where the vision of the driver is impaired may fail the test. In
practice, the annual test will check that items placed in, or stuck to, the windscreen, or
surface damage, cracks or discolouration in the windscreen do not seriously obscure
the vision of the driver. In order to better define what may be permissible the
windscreen is divided into Zones:
 Zone A is a vertical area 290mm wide, centred on the steering wheel and
contained within the swept area of the windscreen (this area is 350mm wide
on vehicles over 3.5 tonnes); and
 Zone B is the remainder of the swept area of the windscreen.
So if a 3rd party places a sticker that is not easily removed they can be considered as contributing to the offence.The specific act of placing stickers in car windows is not in itself illegal. However, it is
an offence, under regulation 30 of The Road Vehicles (Construction & Use)
Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1078), to drive a vehicle in which the glass is
maintained in such a condition that the vision of the driver is impaired.
It is also a requirement of the MOT Test that any windscreen that is damaged or
obscured to the extent where the vision of the driver is impaired may fail the test. In
practice, the annual test will check that items placed in, or stuck to, the windscreen, or
surface damage, cracks or discolouration in the windscreen do not seriously obscure
the vision of the driver. In order to better define what may be permissible the
windscreen is divided into Zones:
 Zone A is a vertical area 290mm wide, centred on the steering wheel and
contained within the swept area of the windscreen (this area is 350mm wide
on vehicles over 3.5 tonnes); and
 Zone B is the remainder of the swept area of the windscreen.
In summary, affixing a sticker that is difficult to remove could be considered as criminal damage and that could lead to a claim through either criminal or civil courts, the latter being the most likely.
We researched all this stuff at work in some detail as we own several thousand car parking spaces and have has issues with people parking in Doctors/Emergency spaces at hospitals and health centres.
I am not going to post our legal advice on here as it is long and commercially sensitive
Nothing hat you've posted above relates to a "claim after an accident". I've no doubt that someone may choose to claim for compensation for criminal damage and they may even be successful.
However, if you get in your car and drive it with your vision partially obscured then that is your own choice. Whether someone else put that vision obscurer there is irrelevant.
However, if you get in your car and drive it with your vision partially obscured then that is your own choice. Whether someone else put that vision obscurer there is irrelevant.
Martin4x4 said:
Afromonk said:
I'd be hugely tempted to put a brick through his van windows, but not on your property obviously
Obviously the same vandals that have been putting the property windows in!Seriously, a million pound business should be able to afford a proper barrier and CCTV.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Thursday 28th August 00:55
LoonR1 said:
Nothing hat you've posted above relates to a "claim after an accident". I've no doubt that someone may choose to claim for compensation for criminal damage and they may even be successful.
However, if you get in your car and drive it with your vision partially obscured then that is your own choice. Whether someone else put that vision obscurer there is irrelevant.
It was you who assumed I was talking insurance claim. I wasn't.However, if you get in your car and drive it with your vision partially obscured then that is your own choice. Whether someone else put that vision obscurer there is irrelevant.
In terms of your second para above, would contributory negligence be a factor? My lawyer believes it could be.
I wish I could find the case history I referred to
blueg33 said:
It was you who assumed I was talking insurance claim. I wasn't.
In terms of your second para above, would contributory negligence be a factor? My lawyer believes it could be.
I wish I could find the case history I referred to
Proximate cause is key here. That chain of events is broken when there is a voluntary action along the way. Choosing to drive is voluntary and therefore the chain is broken. In terms of your second para above, would contributory negligence be a factor? My lawyer believes it could be.
I wish I could find the case history I referred to
Surely the type of claim you were referring to could be made with or without an accident. Hence why I assumed insurance claim.
9mm said:
Martin4x4 said:
Afromonk said:
I'd be hugely tempted to put a brick through his van windows, but not on your property obviously
Obviously the same vandals that have been putting the property windows in!Seriously, a million pound business should be able to afford a proper barrier and CCTV.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Thursday 28th August 00:55
Well I suppose you would see the people destroying the 'new' barrier, unless they destryed the CCTV cameras first.
julian64 said:
We put up a very expensive barrier, it was snapped in two within twenty four hours, police not interested.
I would suggest big heavy swinging gates, or hiring part of the car park out short term to some Polish builders.Hol said:
9mm said:
Martin4x4 said:
Afromonk said:
I'd be hugely tempted to put a brick through his van windows, but not on your property obviously
Obviously the same vandals that have been putting the property windows in!Seriously, a million pound business should be able to afford a proper barrier and CCTV.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Thursday 28th August 00:55
Well I suppose you would see the people destroying the 'new' barrier, unless they destryed the CCTV cameras first.
julian64 said:
We put up a very expensive barrier, it was snapped in two within twenty four hours, police not interested.
I would suggest big heavy swinging gates, or hiring part of the car park out short term to some Polish builders.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff