My mother has just received a notice of intended prosecution from the Police for careless and inconsiderate driving, this relates to apparently scratching another car whilst backing out of a space in a multi-story carpark.
She was very surprised at this as she was not aware of having touched a car whilst backing out but on inspecting her own car found a small amount of paint and a rubber mark as it from a tyre. Presumeably there must either have been a witness or a camera to record this, otherwise how do we know that it was not another car scraping along her vehicle that left the paint?
Assuming she is at fault here, I would have expected that she be asked for her insurance details in order for a repair to be carried out. Instead she has received this Notice of Intended Prosecution. This does seem rather OTT in the circumstances.
Is this normal? Also can someone be prosecuted whilst on private property?
I would be grateful for any thoughts on this. She is actually a very careful driver and good at manoeuvring the car, never having touched another vehicle whilst parking in the past and is very upset about the prospect of being prosecuted.
Olly
|
It used to be that a prosecution for driving without due care attention/reasonable consideration for other road users was only committed on a 'road'
This was extended to cover 'public places' which can include car parks etc . wher the public have unfettered access.
It looks as if someone has seen your mother cause the damage, recorded her number and advised owner of damaged car. Person has then reported this to police who are now duty bound to investigate as apparent offences committed by Mother now include:
Due care
Failing to stop after an accident
Failing to report an accident.
These are substantial offences.
Whilst there is no need to serve a NOIP as an accident has occurred a number of forces do back it up with written notice so that they can go ahead with a prosecution if enquiries reveal due care involved. Service of NOIP does not automatically mean she will be prosecuted....its a safeguard to aloow them to proceed should evidence reveal offence committed.
I would suspect she will be getting a visit from an officer to get her side of the story.
Note that once they prove damage they do not have to prove knowledge of the driver at being involved it is the offending driver to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not so aware ( Selby v Chief Constable of Somerset [1988])
Maybe prudent to have a word with the family solicitor?
dvd
|
This was extended to cover 'public places' which can include car parks etc . wher the public have unfettered access.
DVD - was this extension following this judgement?
www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/clarke1.htm
"A Car park held not to be a "Road".
(1998) [newpaper from the OTHER side], October 23 HOUSE OF LORDS
Clarke v Kato and Others Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd "
|
It pre-dates that by about 10 years. Unfortunately it was such a poorly written bit of legislation
that there is regular case-law to decide precisely what it means.
|
|
I wish the police had been that diligent when someone drove into my wife's car and we reported it with number plate!
|
|
|
The overall factor from above is that if the car park can and is used on occasions by the public as a means of getting from A to B (a shortcut perhaps) then it could be defined as a road. An example is cutting through a pub car park situated on a road junction to shortcut a set of traffic lights.
In any event the OP relates to a car park which is a Public Place for the purposes of the relevant legislation.
|
|
That's why (in the absence of full information) I was a bit dubious of the OP's example.
|
Thanks everybody for your help, I am now enlightened.>> That's why (in the absence of full information) I was a bit dubious of theOP's example.
|
|
|
jbif
>>>>>>DVD - was this extension following this judgement?
www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/clarke1.htm<<<<<<
At the time of those cases for S143 offence one had to prove that it was on a 'road' only and it was held that a car park was not a road.
Following on from this to cover such an ommission then they passed The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regs 2000 which made it an offence not to be insured when vehicle in a 'public' place'. Likewise it made it an offence to fail to stop/report an accident on a 'public place' (SI 2000/726). Before this it only referred to a 'road'.
1991 RTA amended S 3 RTA 88 to bring in 'public place' for due care did it not.
From what stated by OP this whilst not a 'road' as such it still could be a 'public place'
As to what is or what isn't provides PU with a full pocket and smile from his Bank Manager but at the end of the day it is a question of fact for the Magistrates to decide upon.
dvd
|
|
|
|
|
|
![2021 Lexus NX 300h 2.5 5dr CVT [8" Nav]](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/d1b959cb70a916c3aa16b9b838187b3f/2e5a96ddfd598bf95166e4edcbb4e8cd.jpg)
