[dazzapb]

Reminds me of the time (in litigation terms at least) when I parked my car at a euro car park in Kingston over a decade ago now.
It was a bay by a pillar which mean to get into the space you had to swing in at an angle it was a nice corner space too in terms of protection from door dings etc.
these spaces were business spaces Monday to Friday clearly marked as it was a weekend all good and they had parking posts in the middle to protect the bays.
On my exit the car just stopped violently and cut out with a huge tearing noise. I got out and my rear bumper was ripped off and the stupid parking post stuck in it.
what I noticed after freeing the car was the bolt nuts were loose when I drove over the loose base it flicked up the post enough for it to catch.
Of course I attempted to claim my costs - the lord save me it was almost impossible to engage with them. Just not interested and kept stating parking at own risk and it was my fault as it was a business bay (not on a Saturday) their final letter was essentially do not contact us again. I pointed out they still had a duty of care and was about to go to court when I was rear ended (bumper was fixed in place as a temp measure) and it kinda got fixed in that regard.

What I learned was this particular car park operator was shocking to deal with and imagine many are the same!
Good luck OP. Sure this is vastly different circumstances anyway!

[mikeoz]

What struck me over the last week or so is that Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv is open with flights taking off while missiles are being fired all over the place. Yet a car park fire closes one of our airports for 18hrs....

Easy for me to say sitting here but does make you think...

[strike4A]

Originally Posted by speedski

I suspect, if true, that will form part of a class action against the car park provider, who, up to now has completely absolved themselves of anything - well apart from cancelling the parking booking of a car already in the car park and taking the full amount for the whole stay despite it happening half way through (unless they take a abnormally long to process the refund here of course).




Turns out today they confirmed all cars are a write off and they made an offer for the car, like I said before it wasn't worth much (monetarily speaking) but the offer is well below any trader-offered car of the same age/spec so pushed the offer back for review (we're already well out of pocket through no fault here).

Also now looking for a JCW or another 128ti - the latter of which seem to be dropping in value a bit...which makes this a little easier to stomach right now.

Interestingly important note, don't keep your V5 in the car. And if you do, ensure you have a note of the VIN at home.

Reason being is the V5 was in the car, and to take the plate off I need the V5 and to get a replacement V5 I need the VIN. Currently caught in DVLA no mans land so need to speak to the 'specialist team' tomorrow on that.

I can get VIN off the plate. DM if you want.

[speedski]

Originally Posted by strike4A

I can get VIN off the plate. DM if you want.

Thanks for the offer, we managed to get the vin from the dealer (who had serviced it since year 1 when we bought it as an ex demo).

Write off settlement reached after offer increased (by over 25% ) the day after I rejected the first offer.

Got the courtesy car for a further week and now need to do personal effects and transport costs on the insurance, then do an immediate transfer of the plate from current to new (can be done with only VIN).

Getting to the end of this, fortunately its been pretty straightforward for us...

[DougMcL]

Originally Posted by Pentland

The car could be cloned or have fake plates - perfect scam for free holiday parking I’d imagine. They should check VINs to ID cars if possible.




I’d have thought it common sense never to leave the v5 in the car in any circumstances

You need to have it in the car with you at all times if you drive in Europe. Mine is sitting in the Jazz in the garage at the mo.

[Pentland]

Originally Posted by DougMcL

You need to have it in the car with you at all times if you drive in Europe. Mine is sitting in the Jazz in the garage at the mo.

There is a difference keeping the V5 with you when you are in the car and leaving the V5 in the car. Particularly when parked at an airport. It has your address on it and so a thief knows you are away…

[agentorange]

Originally Posted by DougMcL

You need to have it in the car with you at all times if you drive in Europe. Mine is sitting in the Jazz in the garage at the mo.

One of the things that pisses me off about the US is that they demand that you carry the registration or a legible copy in the vehicle at all times. It has your address on it, and I strongly object to leaving anything with my address on it in a place as insecure as a car.

[Cootie]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

The cap on the individuals motor policy 3rd party liability is likely to be £1.2m so unless they can get JLR to pay, there are going to be alot of costs met by the other car (and property) owners...

(according to Google, the £1.2m may be a bit out of date but unlikely to be over £5m...)

£20m tends to be the cap for most motor policies these days, albeit it’s looking like the end bill for this is likely in the £45-50m territory. Likely some shuffling in seats for both the insurer of the source vehicle and ultimately JLR if proven to arise from a manufacturing fault.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Cootie

£20m tends to be the cap for most motor policies these days, albeit it’s looking like the end bill for this is likely in the £45-50m territory. Likely some shuffling in seats for both the insurer of the source vehicle and ultimately JLR if proven to arise from a manufacturing fault.

Yep, confirmed with our insurers last week - as a car park operator it got me thinking if any of the liability would fall to us / our property insurer! Given our car parks are much smaller and or single level I think we are safe...

[bigjimmer80]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...herts-67193165

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by Cootie

£20m tends to be the cap for most motor policies these days, albeit it’s looking like the end bill for this is likely in the £45-50m territory. Likely some shuffling in seats for both the insurer of the source vehicle and ultimately JLR if proven to arise from a manufacturing fault.

Unless the owner of the car that supposedly started the fire had an open recall and a recognised fault that made it prone for a fire and was awaiting a repair date comes forward how can the manufacturer be blamed.

[Ennoch]

Originally Posted by bigjimmer80

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...herts-67193165

I just saw that. Unless they have evidence the customer threw a lit rag under the car it seems a tad unnecessary if as they say it was an accidental fire and the arrest is 'precautional'. The stress, potentially very long term, as a result of wrongful arrest cannot be underestimated and as such it seems misguided if they do truly believe it to be an accidental fire.

[agentorange]

Originally Posted by Ennoch

I just saw that. Unless they have evidence the customer threw a lit rag under the car it seems a tad unnecessary if as they say it was an accidental fire and the arrest is 'precautional'. The stress, potentially very long term, as a result of wrongful arrest cannot be underestimated and as such it seems misguided if they do truly believe it to be an accidental fire.

A "precautional" arrest? WTF??? What happened to "probable cause"? Sounds like a DNA collection exercise to me.

[Pentland]

Originally Posted by Ennoch

I just saw that. Unless they have evidence the customer threw a lit rag under the car it seems a tad unnecessary if as they say it was an accidental fire and the arrest is 'precautional'. The stress, potentially very long term, as a result of wrongful arrest cannot be underestimated and as such it seems misguided if they do truly believe it to be an accidental fire.

Th report said the man was arrested for “criminal damage”. If it was damage by fire, isn’t that arson? TouringPleb

[JR1664]

Originally Posted by agentorange

A "precautional" arrest? WTF??? What happened to "probable cause"? Sounds like a DNA collection exercise to me.

It's Luton not the states

Over here it's reasonable grounds.

Originally Posted by Pentland

Th report said the man was arrested for “criminal damage”. If it was damage by fire, isn’t that arson? TouringPleb

Same thing. Arson is criminal damage and falls under the criminal damage act. It's usually the charge that denotes the exact offence.

I've mixed feelings and hell it could be any one of us. The issue is that until they get a full breakdown of the vehicle examination / cause of fire then without doubt they will err on the side of caution. They'd already be in possession of his details, history and antecedents so perhaps something triggered it, who knows.

[Stainy]

Originally Posted by JR1664

I've mixed feelings and hell it could be any one of us. The issue is that until they get a full breakdown of the vehicle examination / cause of fire then without doubt they will err on the side of caution.

They can err on the side of caution all day, but the arrest still needs to pass something called the 'necessity test'. They already have the car, so unless the driver was being obstructive in some other way (refusing to be questioned/refusing to hand over clothing/phone etc.) then there's very little information to suggest the arrest was necessary.
Unlawful arrest runs at around £700 an hour compensation; so I can see a nice little earner for the driver if he/she chooses to fight it.

[JR1664]

Originally Posted by Stainy

They can err on the side of caution all day, but the arrest still needs to pass something called the 'necessity test'. They already have the car, so unless the driver was being obstructive in some other way (refusing to be questioned/refusing to hand over clothing/phone etc.) then there's very little information to suggest the arrest was necessary.
Unlawful arrest runs at around £700 an hour compensation; so I can see a nice little earner for the driver if he/she chooses to fight it.

Well clearly the custody officer booking him in was satisfied code G was met so as per usual we're speculating on something we have little knowledge about.

[speedski]

He might be something to do with the apparent empty fire extinguisher.

[agentorange]

Originally Posted by JR1664

It's Luton not the states

Over here it's reasonable grounds.



Same thing. Arson is criminal damage and falls under the criminal damage act. It's usually the charge that denotes the exact offence.

I've mixed feelings and hell it could be any one of us. The issue is that until they get a full breakdown of the vehicle examination / cause of fire then without doubt they will err on the side of caution. They'd already be in possession of his details, history and antecedents so perhaps something triggered it, who knows.

I used "probable cause" only because I've lived here so long I couldn't recall the UK term. "Reasonable grounds" vs "probable cause" seems more like an issue of "two nations divided by a common language" rather than demonstrating a significant difference in legal terms.

Regardless, until more information comes out, the arrest as described (the RR owner) smacks of "do-something-itis". If it is a third party who emptied the extinguisher at another time, nail the bugger.

[JustChris]

🤔

[Somebloke]

Budget edition.....

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by JustChris

🤔

That car must be for the American market - look at it compared to the size of the fire fighters and the fire engine