Damaged while parked

[Buckman]

If you use a car park whether you pay or not and while parked your car is damaged, if you are able to prove the damage occurred while on their car park, would it be possible to claim from the car park owner using the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

 

[Mel]

No idea, but don’t many car parks publish some sort of “at your own risk…….no liability “ disclaimer. No idea if it has any legal standing.
Mel

 

[otherclive]

Is your question a roundabout way of telling us that the Jeep has acquired a ding whilst parked?

 

[Buckman]

No idea, but don’t many car parks publish some sort of “at your own risk…….no liability “ disclaimer. No idea if it has any legal standing.
Mel

If you pay, you are paying for them to look after your car while it is on their land.

Is your question a roundabout way of telling us that the Jeep has acquired a ding whilst parked?

Not really, but I did get a ding about 2 years ago while parked in a BB bay at a supermarket. No chance of proving it and I was not aware of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

I came across the on another forum and someone used it and was successful. No idea how they went about the claim as proving it would be very difficult, but with CCTV all over the place maybe?

Strangely since 2012 and 3 Jeeps later we have used the old Corolla mainly to the supermarkets and around town and it has never received new ding, but all the Jeeps have been dinged at some point in a supermarket car park. I wonder why? By ding, I mean a small chip.

 

[otherclive]

I would have thought the car parks operator must be able to limit their liability to actions that they can control. You aren’t paying for them to look after your car, your payment is for the ability to provide you a parking space. Perhaps the precedent that you mention had particular circumstances.

 

[Buckman]

I would have thought the car parks operator must be able to limit their liability to actions that they can control. You aren’t paying for them to look after your car, your payment is for the ability to provide you a parking space. Perhaps the precedent that you mention had particular circumstances.

They also have a duty of care.

 

[otherclive]

They also have a duty of care.

Yes but duties of care are not all embracing, so it would be nice to know the particular circumstances of the case that you have referred to.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library/parking%20news/PPN30-%20Liability%20for%20car%20park%20maintenance%20-%20November%202011.pdf

 

[Buckman]

Yes but duties of care are not all embracing, so it would be nice to know the particular circumstances of the case that you have referred to.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library/parking%20news/PPN30-%20Liability%20for%20car%20park%20maintenance%20-%20November%202011.pdf

Surely you do not believe anything that the British Parking state. Of course they will be in the negative to protect their members. After all they have zero authority along with zero brains!

 

[otherclive]

Surely you do not believe anything that the British Parking state. Of course they will be in the negative to protect their members. After all they have zero authority along with zero brains!

I don’t see it as you do. Theirs guidance embodies the law and obligations of the members that provide parking services. Aimed at preventing incidents, legal liability and conflict.
Why should I believe anything in this thread as you’ve still not posted anything concrete to support the statement that someone successfully used the 1957 act.

Have a read of Wikipedia or some legal website on what Duty of Care really means. (in law)

 

[ProfJohnL]

I do remember but can't recall the details, but a number of years ago the disclaimer notices put up in a car park e.g. "Vehicle parked at owners risk". was successfully challenged and despite such a notice the carpark owner or operator was found liable for a customer loss, but it was due to the specific circumstances of the case, and doesn't mean all such notices are invalid under normal operating conditions. And I don't know which laws were involved.

It seems all you are doing is hiring a space, which unless the site operator is controlling who has access to the space, their liability seems to be just the provision of the space and its suitability for the purpose of parking.

I believe you would have to be able to show the operator was negligent in their activities to operate or maintain the site. But where other members of the public have unfettered access to the site, such as in a supermarket car park, It very unlikely the supermarket could be held liable for any damage or loss from your own car whilst parked there.

It could be different if the operator was employing personnel to park your car, or was stating or inferring any additional security afforded by their facility.

 

[RogerL]

I do remember but can't recall the details, but a number of years ago the disclaimer notices put up in a car park e.g. "Vehicle parked at owners risk". was successfully challenged and despite such a notice the carpark owner or operator was found liable for a customer loss, but it was due to the specific circumstances of the case, and doesn't mean all such notices are invalid under normal operating conditions. And I don't know which laws were involved.

It seems all you are doing is hiring a space, which unless the site operator is controlling who has access to the space, their liability seems to be just the provision of the space and its suitability for the purpose of parking.

I believe you would have to be able to show the operator was negligent in their activities to operate or maintain the site. But where other members of the public have unfettered access to the site, such as in a supermarket car park, It very unlikely the supermarket could be held liable for any damage or loss from your own car whilst parked there.

It could be different if the operator was employing personnel to park your car, or was stating or inferring any additional security afforded by their facility.

A notice denying liability in all circumstances is untenable - if the issue is caused by wilful or negligent action by the operator, they would still be liable.

 

[borderbilly]

Do what I do, park in the mother and child spaces, nice big spaces 👍

 

[otherclive]

Do what I do, park in the mother and child spaces, nice big spaces 👍

That’s a let down for fathers then, or grandparents too. 😱

 

[Buckman]

I do remember but can't recall the details, but a number of years ago the disclaimer notices put up in a car park e.g. "Vehicle parked at owners risk". was successfully challenged and despite such a notice the carpark owner or operator was found liable for a customer loss, but it was due to the specific circumstances of the case, and doesn't mean all such notices are invalid under normal operating conditions. And I don't know which laws were involved.

It seems all you are doing is hiring a space, which unless the site operator is controlling who has access to the space, their liability seems to be just the provision of the space and its suitability for the purpose of parking.

I believe you would have to be able to show the operator was negligent in their activities to operate or maintain the site. But where other members of the public have unfettered access to the site, such as in a supermarket car park, It very unlikely the supermarket could be held liable for any damage or loss from your own car whilst parked there.

It could be different if the operator was employing personnel to park your car, or was stating or inferring any additional security afforded by their facility.

You are correct regarding the challenge. Sadly I cannot recall the actual incident, but do remember it as it was mentioned in a our law course which was part of the Business Studies degree course.

 

[borderbilly]

That’s a let down for fathers then, or grandparents too. 😱

Well being a father and grandparent myself I am well within my rights.

 

[Sam Vimes]

Do what I do, park in the mother and child spaces, nice big spaces 👍

Are you deliberately trying to provoke an argument with your pointless post?

 

[borderbilly]

Are you deliberately trying to provoke an argument with your pointless post?

No, and its not pointless.