Semi-abandoned car in car park

[defblade]

Anything we can do about this?

I work in this shop once a week. Between this shop and the next, there's a tarmac car park (used as a car park, anyway, it's basically half a tapering plot you couldn't do much else with) with just about room for one row of cars either side. The staff here don't know who owns it. It has no signs of any sort and is freely accessible to anyone to use.

Someone has parked a Citroen Picasso half way down one side and left it there. It's quite bashed up on the bodywork, got a flat tyre now and is starting to go mouldy inside.

It's marked SORN, amazingly has an MOT, but has no insurance. Apparently, the owner has a history of loud arguments with the previous owner of this shop.

I know getting rid of dumped cars can be a PITA as the best of times; I'm not sure this one is completely dumped. If they'd have tucked right up the back corner, I wouldn't even be posting... but this car park is properly tight, and where it is is inconsiderate and on the way.

I guess our only chance would revolve around the insurance... Is a completely uncontrolled car park like this considered a public or private area? The DVLA etc really don't make this at all clear when looking at insurance requirements.


Much as I'd like to trolley jack it onto the road, the shop owners are certainly not going to consider anything of any sort of dubious legality, so none of the usual suggestions, please

[illmonkey]

Ask Ronnie Pickering if it's his, I'd not mess with him though.

[Orang]

If the "car park" is available to the public (ie customers) then any vehicle would need insurance, even if the land was privately owned.

[QJumper]

Can't you just report it to the council and get them to deal with it?

[MBVitoria]

QJumper said:

Can't you just report it to the council and get them to deal with it?

This - most councils have an online link to report abandoned vehicles.

I'm no expert but 99% sure that if it's parked on public accessible land then it needs tax and insurance. As it has neither, report it to the council and DVLA (https://www.gov.uk/report-untaxed-vehicle) and it should be gone in a few weeks.

Keep us updated!

[deja.vu]

Orang said:

If the "car park" is available to the public (ie customers) then any vehicle would need insurance, even if the land was privately owned.

The OP states its " used as a car park", which would imply it isn't actually a carpark, but private land they park on.

[TheLoraxxZeus]

deja.vu said:

The OP states its " used as a car park", which would imply it isn't actually a carpark, but private land they park on.

Which sounds like the person has every right to park their car there, even if SORN'd.

If this area is not private the car can easily be removed by reporting it, it's sitting SORN'd with no insurance on a public road at that point. Sounds like OP just isn't happy over a perfectly legal situation which is understandable if it's in the way and half wrecked.

[OutInTheShed]

Personally, if it mattered to me, I'd find out who owned the land, via the land registry.

Can of worms though, chances are nobody has a right to park there.

[Cat]

Orang said:

If the "car park" is available to the public (ie customers) then any vehicle would need insurance, even if the land was privately owned.

Not necessarily R v Spence [1999] EWCA Crim 808.

Cat

[Orang]

Cat said:

Not necessarily R v Spence [1999] EWCA Crim 808.

Cat

That was an interesting read. Thank you.

[Foss62]

Orang said:

Cat said:

Not necessarily R v Spence [1999] EWCA Crim 808.

Cat

That was an interesting read. Thank you.

Very interesting, but also, I think conflicts with the often mentioned cases of people supposedly arrested for drinking and driving in pub car parks, as they could also be regarded as only for specific members of the public?

[OutInTheShed]

Foss62 said:

Orang said:

Cat said:

Not necessarily R v Spence [1999] EWCA Crim 808.

Cat

That was an interesting read. Thank you.

Very interesting, but also, I think conflicts with the often mentioned cases of people supposedly arrested for drinking and driving in pub car parks, as they could also be regarded as only for specific members of the public?

Not really, the appeal case seems to hinge on 'the public' not accessing a private car park belonging to a small firm (because they had no reason to), whereas a pub car park could be considered to be used by 'the general public'. Albeit only a subset of 'the public' who happen to go to that pub.

Have any real people been convicted of drink driving in a pub car park? Have any of them tried to appeal?

[seabod91]

Is it unlocked ?

Let the handbrake off and roll it into the road in a way it is obstructing traffic but not actually causing the traffic to stop if that makes sense. Report and will be gone in no time.

[Foss62]

OutInTheShed said:

Not really, the appeal case seems to hinge on 'the public' not accessing a private car park belonging to a small firm (because they had no reason to), whereas a pub car park could be considered to be used by 'the general public'. Albeit only a subset of 'the public' who happen to go to that pub.

Have any real people been convicted of drink driving in a pub car park? Have any of them tried to appeal?

Chasing this up a bit more, it seems that in the past, pub car parks have been regarded as ‘public’, but only during opening hours. This raises the interesting idea, that a car on SORN owned by the pub landlord and kept in the car park, would be legal for parts of the day and illegal for others.

[CoolHands]

QJumper said:

Can't you just report it to the council and get them to deal with it?

Councils do fk all, haven’t you noticed? Also, if it’s private land they will quickly do even less than fk all.

[OutInTheShed]

Foss62 said:

Chasing this up a bit more, it seems that in the past, pub car parks have been regarded as ‘public’, but only during opening hours. This raises the interesting idea, that a car on SORN owned by the pub landlord and kept in the car park, would be legal for parts of the day and illegal for others.

The area occupied by the landlord's car would not be 'open to the public' due to being occupied by the landlord's car?

[defblade]

Foss62 said:

Orang said:

Cat said:

Not necessarily R v Spence [1999] EWCA Crim 808.

Cat

That was an interesting read. Thank you.

Very interesting, but also, I think conflicts with the often mentioned cases of people supposedly arrested for drinking and driving in pub car parks, as they could also be regarded as only for specific members of the public?

Yes, definite conflict there with pubs.

In my case, the very fact that he's parked there would exclude the reasoning in that judgement, as by accessing it without just being there to use one of the surrounding businesses, he has opened up from the specific classes to general public.

He's there on Streetview in Nov '21, in the same spot... don't know if it was abandoned then, or if it's just his favourite space!

Anyhow, is it a report to the council or police 101 to try our luck?

[bongtom]

Cat said:

Orang said:

If the "car park" is available to the public (ie customers) then any vehicle would need insurance, even if the land was privately owned.

Not necessarily R v Spence [1999] EWCA Crim 808.

Cat

I can’t see a judgement. Having the right to appeal and getting a favourable judgement are two different things.

And secondly, how the f did he get done for dangerous driving in a small car park!

[Cat]

bongtom said:

I can’t see a judgement. Having the right to appeal and getting a favourable judgement are two different things.

I think you've maybe not understood the link I posted. It wasn't the court giving permission to appeal. It was a successful appeal and the conviction was quashed (see the last line) as the appeal court decided that the car park in question wasn't a public place.

Cat

[OutInTheShed]

bongtom said:

I can’t see a judgement. Having the right to appeal and getting a favourable judgement are two different things.

And secondly, how the f did he get done for dangerous driving in a small car park!

The link ends with:
Therefore for those reasons this appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed.

I think that's a 'judgement'?