Is it possible to take a “secure” car park to court?

[gibson2004]

Hey all,

We have a secure car park at work that advertises CCTV and patrols, this is run by a private company.
A colleague has had their car dented by someone smashing their door (assuming it was the door) into their car and the person driving off, above the car is CCTV looking directly at the car. It’s come to light that the camera is not working and to make matters worse the camera hasn’t worked since the back end of last year.
Police have been contacted and have said there’s nothing they can do without the camera footage.
My colleague of the dented car is looking to take legal action against the private car park firm for negligence as if the camera was working the reg and the person could have been caught with this footage and on top of that the camera hasn’t been fixed in a number of months, he’s also looking to recover the costs it will take fixing his car.

He has contacted the private company who run the car park and they have just brushed him off.

Does my work colleague have a case here?

Thank you.

[matjk]

I doubt it , he doesn’t even really know if it happened in the car park , that’s just the first place he noticed it , and even if the cctv was working, proving that the car parked next actually did the dent would be difficult , unless the camera is very high resolution and pointing right at the door and you can see the dent happening. Get dent devils round to remove the dent for £80 and move on,

[LarsG]

You could take the firm that manages the car park to court as the "car park" won't fit through the door. Joking aside there will be sign that says you leave your car at your own risk.....

Unless their terms and conditions state they will look after and bubble wrap your car and pay compensation for any damage the occurs while on their land you have no chance.

[LarsG]

Your "friend" would be wasting his money to try and claim, ask him to ask for the terms and conditions of leaving the car there.

Not only that but is it his employer that has a contractural agreement with the car parking firm and not him.? So the car park firm owes you no duty of care because there is no link unless you have to pay personally for the use of the parking space but your firm might be owed a duty of care on behalf of your friend by the car park firm.

If your firm rents the space for you, you might have a tenuous claim against your employer that they are in breach of contract for not providing you with secure and safe parking. You'd probably get laughed at in court and lose your job on the same day.

Edited by LarsG on Sunday 20th May 21:04

[Sheepshanks]

It'd be a small claims case so worth a punt for the negligible cost - often you win by default and even if goes to a hearing the outcome can be close to random.

[LarsG]

There has to be a duty of care to make the claim. As the car park contract is with his employer and not your friend as I doubt he pays for the space there is no duty of care from the car park firm. The duty of care would be contractural and owed by the car park firm to your friends employer. However, car parks have a valid disclaimer that usually states that any damage caused is at the owners expense. As the car park firm has no control over the conduct of the car park users they cannot be liable for the damage unless it is expressly stated in the terms and conditions of use, it won't be I can assure you. The fact that the car parking did not have working cameras is neither here nor there for the same reason, unless categorically started in the terms and conditions which it won't be.

Finally, even if the cameras had been working your friend would not have access to the recordings because of privacy laws. They would not be able to give him the recording without a court order or they would be in breach of Data Protection Laws. The Police could request them but as this was on private land and there were no injuries it may fall within the terms of a civil case. In this case you can apply to the court to release the tape but you will need in the region of £20,000 and legal representation to do so.

So.... was the damage more than £20,000 and are there recordings? No.

Sadly your friend must suck it up and use it as a learning experience.

Of course as stated before, his employer may have a duty of care to him for allowing the use of the car park.... except that they will have a clause which states at your own risk.

So does he want to keep his job? Does he have insurance that will cover the repair?

Edited by LarsG on Sunday 20th May 22:25

[mustdash]

LarsG said:

Finally, even if the cameras had been working your friend would not have access to the recordings because of privacy laws. They would not be able to give him the recording without a court order or they would be in breach of Data Protection Laws......In this case you can apply to the court to release the tape but you will need in the region of £20,000 and legal representation to do so.

Section 35 of the Data Protection Act disagrees with you......

[LarsG]

mustdash said:

LarsG said:

Finally, even if the cameras had been working your friend would not have access to the recordings because of privacy laws. They would not be able to give him the recording without a court order or they would be in breach of Data Protection Laws......In this case you can apply to the court to release the tape but you will need in the region of £20,000 and legal representation to do so.

Section 35 of the Data Protection Act disagrees with you......

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.

(1)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.
(2)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—
(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

So in all likelihood you would have to instigate proceeding in the court which can cost money as the Police won't back you to take a car parking firm to court for not having cameras that work.

Also,

UK law only requires insurance for driving ‘on a road or other public place’. This means that motor accidents that occur on private land will not be covered by motor insurance. Over the years insurers have managed to successfully fight off a significant number of cases that have involved motor accidents on private land.

However there was a case in the EU Courts "Vnuk" I think, but that was in relation to personal injury and has very tenuous validity.

Though the car park might not be a public place if it is privately run.
Is it really worth the hassle?

The Police will take a statement but probably won't bother to follow it up. Not that you have any evidence to show who "did" it.

The whole issue is moot and you'd be wasting you time claiming against the car parking firm.

Edited by LarsG on Monday 21st May 07:11

Edited by LarsG on Monday 21st May 07:14

[surveyor]

Breach of contract? Purports to be a secure car park but is not maintained to be as such.

Downside is suing for Parking fee only of course..

[gibson2004]

I thought it wouldn't be worth it, when adding up the legal costs against the damage (est £80 tops) it's just not worth it.

As mentioned above the car park may have a clause to get out of stuff like this.


I tend to park on the top floor away from all other cars to avoid situations like this.

Thanks for the info guys

[LarsG]

WTF all this effort for a measly £80 damage?

[Vipers]

LarsG said:

WTF all this effort for a measly £80 damage?

£80 wow, had a ding in my Volvo all of 50mm long, didn't even break the paintwork, just looked tacky.

Three quotes, all around £400.

[gibson2004]

Yes, it’s only in my opinion £80 worth of damage and I have mentioned it’s probably a hill not worth dying on, what my colleague has said its the principle that someone has done this and that a car park that is supposed to be safe isn’t, so he sees an injustice in this.

I’m just intrigued with the situation and as I’m no expert, i was wondering if the community of piston heads has any knowledge on this kind of situation.

[voyds9]

LarsG said:

There has to be a duty of care to make the claim. As the car park contract is with his employer and not your friend as I doubt he pays for the space there is no duty of care from the car park firm.
snip

Not so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson

Duty of care extends to the user of the service/goods.

[LarsG]

voyds9 said:

LarsG said:

There has to be a duty of care to make the claim. As the car park contract is with his employer and not your friend as I doubt he pays for the space there is no duty of care from the car park firm.
snip

Not so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson

Duty of care extends to the user of the service/goods.

Yes I know the case, it was required reading when I did my law degree.
In this case a duty of care was owed by the vendor of the goods and the maker of the goods. The slug was hidden in the cloudy Ginger Ale. There is also a case of underpants giving an Australian a rash too.

However, in this case the contract is between the employer and the car parking firm and not the car owner and the car parking firm as I understand it. The car spaces are provided by the employer. So no consideration has been given or acceptance made between the car owner and the car parking firm. Therefore there is no contract. Had the car owner paid for the space then possibly yes, but the disclaimer will state that the firm has no control over other users and they cannot be held liable. Unless the car parking firm were instrumental through negligence to have damaged the car then there is a possible case. But you try to prove negligence in this one. In this case no court in this land will make the car parking firm payout damages to the car owner as the cameras that are not working wasn't the negligence that cause the accident and the damage.

I also expect that the employer gives the spaces to the employees on the understanding that the use of the car park is at their own risk.

Edited by LarsG on Monday 21st May 23:06

Edited by LarsG on Monday 21st May 23:08

[KungFuPanda]

Blah blah Donoghue, The Wagonmound, The Wagonmound II etc etc.

Seriously, I think your friend is on a hiding to nothing.

The negligent party was the one who drove into your car. End of story.

[tinnitusjosh]

you could try and go at it from a 'detrimental reliance' angle, by seeking to show that:

A. you parked your car there in reliance on the operator's representation that it was secure etc., and that there were cameras etc etc.,
B. the operator's representation was not true (i.e. it was not secure) and
C. you suffered a loss as result of the representation not being true.

I think all three limbs of that are easily defeated, to be honest. You didn't park there because it was held out to be 'secure' (presumably you parked there because that your work car park); one faulty camera does not make the carpark 'insecure'; and you didn't suffer a loss because the camera was broken, you suffered a loss because someone hit your car. It's a pity that they can't help you identify who it was.