Is it not exit, as opposed to access?
I always thought a drive with lowered kerb could be blocked if no vehicle is in the drive. If a vehicle is in the drive then you couldn't legally block its exit.
I await correction/ridicule/flogging! 
Chat Forum
[closed]
So did we break the law today?? Car removal content.
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
i.e. a driveway then you're causing an obstruction.
That is true but the law relates to unnecessary obstruction of the road, not private driveways. Reference to dropped kerbs is spurious. As far as I'm aware, whilst it is an annoying thing and probably should be an actionable offence, it has never been tested in court to my knowledge. Having said that, it is a commonly held belief that it is illegal and the police, if they get involved, will give the impression (whether unwittingly or not) to 'the offender' that it is an offence.
I am not plod and I get the impression that crankboy may well be able to correct me. I am never too old to learn
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not sure Neil, hers is two gates so you wouldn't be able to see if there's a car in or not. Anyhoo the cars were definitely taken away by the truck. One of the women even knocked on her door to see if she'd seen anybody steal her car
Posted 1 year ago # -
Criminal Damage requires you to intend or be reckless about causing damage and you were not
If I was prosecuting, that is exactly what he was... Arguably didn't care about damaging the car. That would be the mens rea sorted. Just the problem of actual dammage to satisfy the actus reus element, and I could have certainly found *some* dammage... I'd have thrown the book atcha!
Posted 1 year ago # -
JacksonPollock not wanting to try the case on the interweb but "The car was most certainly not damaged as it was out of gear and the strap attached to his tow bar, lifted up and wheeled back on the front wheels." does suggest that damage was not only not intended but also active steps were taken to avoid risk. So not arguably didn't care about damaging the car . In fact from his post leaving the car where it was and working round it carried a greater risk of damage.
I have no idea what the criminal law about blocking private drive ways is. If someone does it more than once to the same person it could be harassment.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Just the problem of actual dammage to satisfy the actus reus element, and I could have certainly found *some* dammage... I'd have thrown the book atcha!
...and I'd have thrown a dictionary to you in return
Posted 1 year ago # -
The fact that I tiptoed over the roof of a car does not absolve me of recklessness to damage.
I have no idea what the criminal law about blocking private drive ways is.
That is because it is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.All conjecture anyhow, as ever with these things it would depend how well it was argued in court
oops re; my spelling of damage, the fact I did it twice suggests I really meant it
Posted 1 year ago # -
I could have certainly found *some* dammage
Ah, but could you prove beyond reasonable doubt that said damage was caused by the defendant?Posted 1 year ago # -
Silence in Court!
I hold you all in Contempt.
Posted 1 year ago # -
b)tampers with the brake or other part of its mechanism,
Tampering with the towbar IS tampering with "other part of its mechanism". I know of a local fly posting company that was taken to court for putting flyers under wiper blades..
And yes, if you block a vehicle into a residence it is covered by obstruction laws, not just in London, anywhere there's a dropped kerb.
Posted 1 year ago # -
There's also the question of trespass to goods but that's not criminal obviously.
Merely by having read the statute and the wikipedia page (which is enough to qualify me as internet lawyer), I don't think you could get TWOC. And if you can't get that (or theft) then you can't get interference with a vehicle.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWOC
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/47but could you prove beyond reasonable doubt that said damage was caused by the defendant?
Yes, thanks to his public confession to the world on the internet, mwah ha ha ha ha!Posted 1 year ago # -
If it happens again, call the Police. (not 999) We do it occasionally at work if we have trouble accessing a manhole over several days and residents move cones. They will look up any phone numbers via the DVLA etc and try and contact the driver on your behalf and ask if they can move it. If its illegally parked they may decide they have the powers to remove the car, if its legally parked they just ask the driver politely.
I'm not advocating poor parking, but if someone lifted my car via the towbar I'd go nuts, I'd rather it was dragged against the handbrake using the towing eye. But I always leave it in gear so that probably wouldn't work without doing some damage.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The other relevant offense would be interfering with a motor vehicle which requires the intent to do another act such as steal when you interfere with the vehicle. So not relevant in your case.
crankboy, from your quote above the guy in this video did nothing wrong either as i'm sure the outcome was not his intent.
Criminal Damage requires you to intend or be reckless about causing damage and you were not and indeed took steps to avoid doing so.
Posted 1 year ago # -
phill.w. top video but I'm not going to spend the day debating subjective, objective and hybrid recklessness for free when i can get paid for it instead. Short answer towing vehicle in controlled circumstances carefull not reckless, lifting unsecured long load at ballance point and swinging it about stupid.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Going back to the OP I think the wording of it was deliberately provocative.
So I got the mini digger and dragged it out of the way
Then he goes on to say how it was carefully lifted and rolled.
The car was most certainly not damaged as it was out of gear and the strap attached to his tow bar, lifted up and wheeled back on the front wheel
That sort of contradiction wouldn't go down well in court and he could find himself at the wrong end of the verdict.
Posted 1 year ago # -
whilst working on building sites full of bloke's i think you will find the usual and best defence of such acts is simply that everyone on site denias all knowledge.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes, thanks to his public confession to the world on the internet
I see no confession to causing damage.Posted 1 year ago # -
We once moved a car in Manchester with the Hiab on our wagon. The car owner came out (eventually, following signage, leaflets, concierge hassling him, etc) and started going mental. The Police also happened to be passing and weren't interested in us and told him to calm down before they lifted him.
We see it every week, smart arses thinking they know better/are too important/are too lazy, ignoring reasonable and timely requests. It costs money (the contractors and eventually the tax payer) and is a total pain. Good on the OP.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
