To be fair, it's a very complicated situation and it only just happened.
The claim the DART will be making for interruption of its service will be mahoosive...
Unsurprisingly there are now plenty of stories surfacing about how difficult insurance companies are being to those caught up in this.
I did see the one on the DM website this morning. Lady saying insurance will only offer her £7k for a car she bought for £20k new 7 years ago. I though £7k sounded about right on that basis! It's not new for old.
I did see the one on the DM website this morning. Lady saying insurance will only offer her £7k for a car she bought for £20k new 7 years ago. I though £7k sounded about right on that basis! It’s not new for old.
Was the story about the awful insurance company or the dumb policyholder?
Unsurprisingly there are now plenty of stories surfacing about how difficult insurance companies are being to those caught up in this.
Links please?
I've just read some of the Daily Heil and Scum "coverage" about it. The headline screaming "Insurer is holding me at FAULT" means the insurer won't be able to recover 100% of its costs from a third party... the common phrase for that is a "fault" incident. Tadaaa.
Next one "I'm not getting a courtesy car". The race to the bottom on price has led to so many companies cutting out slices of cover like a car when your's is either being repaired or written off. See that document you got with the price on it? Also tells you the cover. Not happy with it? Buy a better policy.
There will be people getting slightly stiffed on "market value" of their cars because insurers aren't a charity and will offer low to start off with. But there'll also be people who reckon their car is worth £20k when nearer £9k is about right.
They're also mentioning personal items in the car - there's usually a separate bit of cover for that. Also the car will probably be taken to a salvage yard where you'll be able to rescue your satnav/ pet cat/ grandpa's ashes as long as you're quick.
There's literally nothing new in any of the stories I've read apart from a bunch of people regretting that they bought cheap cover from shit companies.
Same thing would apply if you bought a pair of chinesium bars weighting 95g for £4.99 direct from the factory. And then wondered why they snapped first time out.
Apologies for the rant, it seems the Mail website has a bad effect on me 😁
It is believed the man was arrested as a precaution and the investigation so far suggests the fire started accidentally due to a vehicle fault.
Typical cop pedantry, always looking for someone to blame. His car, therefore his fault due to some unseen maintenance issue. He owned the car so his responsibility to make sure it was 100% in order.
I doubt even an mot check would locate a rubber pipe that was at the point of failing(If fuel leak was indeed the cause)
Would a sprinkler system be effective in putting out multiple burning vehicles?
A mix of petrol, diesel and batteries blazing away?
It would take a huge quantity of water and/or foam to put that lot out.
Typical cop pedantry, always looking for someone to blame
Typical ignorant keyboard bollocks.
You may want to be interviewed by the Police about something without the protection of being under arrest or caution, there's no way that I would.
Would a sprinkler system be effective in putting out multiple burning vehicles?
A mix of petrol, diesel and batteries blazing away?
It would take a huge quantity of water and/or foam to put that lot out.
Nope but probably could have put the first one to catch fire out 🤔
It wasn't the mail (I don't read that) but one of the local news sites plus I think something on the BBC also caught my eye.
However, whilst its easy to say people are idiots and haven't bought the cover they needed, I take issue with this. Buying insurance (for anything) has become an absolute minefield. Having a zillion different options, shopping around and all the other bollox touted as consumer choice just leads to an adversarial transaction where it is so easy to be tripped up if you take your eye off the ball. Yes its obvious when pointed out later that something is as plain as day in the T&Cs but sometimes you are not actually thinking that really obvious thing might not be covered - especially if it was previously included.
Then there is plain fraud - I just took out some last minute euro breakdown insurance for my wife who had to drive to Netherlands at short notice. i was literally just about to press the button on a policy when I noticed randomly that it didn't start to cover travel for 7 days after purchase. The frickin policy was only for 6 days and she was leaving the next day! They were quite happy to sell me a policy I couldn't have claimed on.
These things shouldn’t be down to a committee / budgetary decision, they should be mandated by law and properly enforced.
Why?
It's a building with inherently very low occupancy rates, fireproof construction, plenty of exit routes.
Legal obligations for things like sprinklers are there to protect people who are inherently hard to put a financial value against. Whereas destroying a few cars is easy to figure out if it was worthwhile installing one.
1500 cars x £5000 each = £7.5million
6000 multi sotrey car parks in the uk
A quick google found 3 fires in the last 6 years (Liverpool, Glasgow, Luton), so 1 in 18,000 chance.
40 year lifespan?
£7.5million * 40 / 18000 = £17,000
Cost to install sprinklers, £12/m2, 1500 cars, 2.5x5m each, and say double to allow for roads, that's £450k.
£17k < £450k so no sprinklers (except maybe on stairwells and fire escapes).
True enough, so back on topic. If they’d all been hydrogen powered cars would all the water created as they exploded have put the fire out before it started?
Because no ones pointed it out, probably because it's stating the bleeding obvious, burning hydrocarbons (or just about anything) produces CO2 and water. So yes it will "put the fire out" like putting a jar over a candle. But that assumes a sealed box, and it tends to re-ignite when you re-introduce oxygen.
...and that car park (like the Liverpool one from a few years ago) is a very open structure so flames won't necessarily go up, they'll go whichever way they're fanned.
A fuel tank rupture will mean that if the sprinkler is activated, the (burning?) fuel will happily be transported around the building.
I think that was one of the issues in Liverpool, all the floors sloped so once the first tank popped there was an easy route for the fire to follow. Plus some drainage channels. All whipped up by winter winds up the Mersey into a very open structure.
You may want to be interviewed by the Police about something without the protection of being under arrest or caution, there’s no way that I would.
Typical STW flounce.
Me neither, but that isnt what I was referring to was it. The police need someone to blame. No accident is an act of god. The only blame that can be attributed is the vehicle was in need of maintenance, ergo it is the responsibility of its keeper.
It's a major incident which closed an international airport and destroyed millions of pounds worth of buildings and cars. The cops have to be thorough in excluding malicious or negligent causes, and carry out interviews under caution.
Maybe the bloke wasn't prepared to be interviewed formally, can't see any need for an arrest otherwise unless there is proper evidence of criminality.
The car would have to be seriously unroadworthy, specifically in regard to fire risk (and the driver aware of this) to make the 'reckless' part of a criminal damage/arson charge stick.
Typical ignorant keyboard bollocks.
You may want to be interviewed by the Police about something without the protection of being under arrest or caution, there’s no way that I would.
I'm intrigued to hear how m3 being arrested gives me protection! You're aware, I assume, that you can be interviewed under caution without being arrested.
I suspect the original reporting is simply mangled.
You may want to be interviewed by the Police about something without the protection of being under arrest or caution, there’s no way that I would.
Only if they asked nicely
’you are cordially invited to be arrested, you do not have to say anything but please RSPV’ something like that.
Probably turns out this & the Liverpool fire were started by owners of Jaguars/Range Rovers with duff Ingenium engines
I’m intrigued to hear how m3 being arrested gives me protection! You’re aware, I assume, that you can be interviewed under caution without being arrested.
I think in truth it doesn't. It legally binds you to whatever answers you give in interview. It is known that the things you say are later used against you, and what initially appears as an innocuous answer to a simple question is far from it. (See Black Belt Barrister for examples)
It's this point I most disagree with because many have received sentences because they are not aware of how their own words can be twisted.
These things shouldn’t be down to a committee / budgetary decision, they should be mandated by law and properly enforced.
I would have assumed that they were, and I would also have assumed that carparks would have sprinkler systems anyway. I’ve never bothered looking, just because I thought they would have.
What rather surprised me was how quickly the car went up, as it was a diesel - yes, I know diesel is an accelerant, but it’s an oil, with a pretty high flashpoint.
But I’m not an engineer or involved with anything to do with inflammable materials. 🤷🏼
Surely you can’t arrest someone without reasonable grounds for suspicion that a crime has (or perhaps is about to be) committed. Arrests have consequences like needing a visa for travel to USA.
I wouldn’t accept an arrest as a bureaucratic convenience for the police.
He probably just lost his parking ticket and didn't want to pay the whole day rate.
In a fit of rage stuffed his tee shirt in the engine bay and lit it
Expecting alot of smoke and the barrier to go up.
Well, the barrier went up along with many , many cars.
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/police-powers-of-arrest-2/
ISTR (Secret Barrister maybe) that by arresting they then also have powers of search to enable prompt gathering and preservation of evidence, etc., that otherwise can be refused if you're voluntarily being interviewed either with or without being formally under caution.
Note too, although the word is the same being interviewed under caution is not the same as accepting a caution.
Why they arrested and then promptly bailed someone, I don't know, but suspect there is a purpose. Maybe it makes it easier then to re-detain someone later if after the evidence gathering they decide that there may have been a crime?
So based on that link, what do we think the justification was for the arrest? Was there a court warrant?
IDK - I have no other knowledge than anyone else reading the reports. I just wanted to set out why someone can be arrested.
But to play whatiffery. What constitutes 'Prompt and effective investigation....' in combination with reasonable grounds a crime may have been committed.
Suppose...just suppose.... they've traced the fire starting to a particular car. They ask the owner some questions, and ask to see the car's service records. And the owner refuses to provide them. What do you as the policeman do next. Is that reasonably suspicious they're 'hiding' something? Does someone's evasiveness increase the suspicion (a copper's 'nose') Does having access to these records enable prompt and effective investigation? When does failure to repair your car potentially become an offence? I assume you don't just drop it, because they aren't very helpful.
(btw, anyone listen to 'It's a Fair Cop' on R4 - comedy show but an ex-copper playing whatiffery with a studio audience - quite thought provoking at times, because there's a lot that isn't simple binary decisions)
So what’re the likely culprits? Fuel leak onto the exhaust manifold? Stuck starter motor?
When does failure to repair your car potentially become an offence? I assume you don’t just drop it, because they aren’t very helpful.
Ideally, there should be some relationship between potential for criminal charging and the police's willingness to arrest you as part of an investigation. Should be an absolute last resort when all other avenues for cooperation have been exhausted, because of the impact it can have on an ordinary citizen.
I suppose they might have evidence that this guy was patching up his fuel lines with gaffer tape. 🙂 But that's probably the level of recklessness they need to prove.
d.
Suppose…just suppose…. they’ve traced the fire starting to a particular car. They ask the owner some questions, and ask to see the car’s service records. etc
The short answer is it really depends on circumstances and in this case there’s not enough detail,
I think PCA got it right above with
I suspect the original reporting is simply mangled.”
Long version if questions have been asked not under caution and therefore without suspecting they have committed a offence and the “suspect” has been abnormally evasive that could be a factor in deciding to arrest. If you already suspect a person and have cautioned them it becomes more nuanced as they, by not commenting, are simply doing what you told them they could in the caution.
If you arrest them solely because of exercising their right to silence the question is why then did you not arrest them at the outset as there has been little change to the grounds and necessity for arrest.
It could be argued that by interviewing under caution without arresting a person, but fully intending to arrest them if they no comment or decide to leave a voluntary interview under caution (both of which they have to be told they can do at the outset of an interview), one is trying to avoid the safeguards of PACE and the custody clock and courts don’t like that sort of gaming.
(IANAL or a Custody sergeant/ officer)
trying to avoid the safeguards of PACE and the custody clock and courts don’t like that sort of gaming.
So an example of how being arrested can actually provide some protection to the arrested.
Is not have car serviced a criminal offence?
IDK. It's an offence to not keep your car in a roadworthy condition. Again whatiffery (such fun!) but suppose the last mechanic had noted that the wiring had been partially eaten by squirrels and it could burst into flames at any point and the owner hadn't done anything. And was also using it to transport containers of nail polish solvent around their empire of nail salons across the home counties. What offence has been committed - and importantly how do you determine that if the person won't co-operate by answering questions.
So what’re the likely culprits? Fuel leak onto the exhaust manifold? Stuck starter motor
DPF deletion, AdBlue bypass (if it has it fitted), dodgy performance tune and turbo modifications can all cause the exhaust to get a lot hotter than normal. Even just regular short journeys and failed regens can lead to issues, anyone who has been near a car that has just parked up while on a Regen cycle knows the hot smell they give off. If the driver had been caning it down the motorway to make a check-in time then gone into the car park the whole drivetrain would be rather toasty, especially as the run from the M1 to the airport has a few short dual carriageways with roundabouts that encourage you to accelerate then brake heavily. If a Regen was due the car would use that as a time to start a Regen and if you switch off or slow to a stop before it finishes then it dumps more diesel down the exhaust.
It could also just be an unlucky electrical fire from the standard 12v system, it is a JLR product after all.
I agree if they spoke to the driver and he seemed particularly shifty or evasive had other "issues" in his behaviour and background then they might have reasonable grounds for suspicion. I don't accept that the fact of a car fire is itself reasonable grounds for suspicion of an offence.
(contrary to the wording on that Liberty page it's not enough for the police to suspect...they have to *have reasonable grounds* to suspect...)
It’s a building with inherently very low occupancy rates, fireproof construction, plenty of exit routes.
I doubt that it was properly fire-proofed as many of the steels will not have been coated in the necessary material to prevent them distorting under heat stress to save costs. It may have been partially treated but the fact that vehicle removal is proving difficult suggests that it's not fully fire-proofed.
The cost of the fire is going to run into £10m’s or even £100m’s. That’s going to be covered by insurance so it’s right to investigate if the car owner is negligent and thus his insurer would be on the hook for 3rd party liability.
The police will be going by the book given the potential repercussions of a successful prosecution.
Can you justify a Copper's nose as reasonable grounds?
It’s an offence to not keep your car in a roadworthy condition
It's an offence to drive an unroadworthy car, but that's not arrestable, obviously. Criminal damage/Arson where there is recklessness which endangers life has a much higher charging threshold. As you say, if the vehicle has, for example, failed MOT on 'leaking fuel pipes' but has still been driven to the airport, then the owner could be in a stickier situation.
Luv a bit of unfounded speculation, me.
But it's only the police's decision to arrest on suspicion of criminal damage (and make that information public), that makes you wonder what angle they are pursuing.
Almost certainly no wrong doing but while they are still finding that out and want to ask the owner of the car that started it off some questions, better that it is done under the protections of an arrest and caution than realise they should have later.
Got to say that I disagree. An arrest results in a permanent record of DNA and fingerprints on the police computers, and is disbarring for some professions.
What does dragging someone down to the police station in handcuffs, locking them in a cell and processing all their personal data do that an interview under caution doesn't?
It’s an offence to drive an unroadworthy car, but that’s not arrestable, obviously.
S24 PACE provides the right for police to arrest, without warrant, for all offences.
The classification of Arrestable offences was got rid of ages ago.
What does dragging someone down to the police station in handcuffs, locking them in a cell and processing all their personal data do that an interview under caution doesn’t?
You can refuse an interview under caution, leave at any time, etc. You've responded to a post from 2 days ago, there's a lot been said since that would be worth reviewing.
I doubt that it was properly fire-proofed as many of the steels will not have been coated in the necessary material to prevent them distorting under heat stress to save costs. It may have been partially treated but the fact that vehicle removal is proving difficult suggests that it’s not fully fire-proofed.
OK, poor choice of technical wording, it's a building constructed from non combustible materials.
The key point being that car park fires are rare, and the consequences in a multistory car park are likely to just be financial. So you don't save lives by having a sprinkler system. You might, but you can't eliminate risk only reduce it as far as reasonably possible. In a car park in particular there's probably a lot of things that would statistically save more lives than a half million pound sprinkler system, more barriers, more traffic calming, more segregated walkways, etc etc.
The exception that proves the rule are underground car parks or those integrated inside shopping centers do usually have sprinklers. Because in those cases you do have very high occupancy in the surrounding building.
That’s going to be covered by insurance so it’s right to investigate if the car owner is negligent and thus his insurer would be on the hook for 3rd party liability
Each of the cars will be claiming off its own policy, and the building owner will be claiming off its policy, and that will be the end of it.
There's too many links in the chain to link the overall event to the car that originally was on fire. Liability cover excludes consequential losses which is exactly what this is a series of.
If you don't believe this, it's been about 6 years since the Liverpool Arena fire. Have you heard of a court case? A LR with an LPG conversion so plenty of possibilities of the work being badly done and not maintained etc.
What does dragging someone down to the police station in handcuffs, locking them in a cell and processing all their personal data do that an interview under caution doesn’t
I agree that arrest is a serious step not to be taken lightly but arresting include;
Compelled to attend interviews and be questioned
Use of special warnings in interviews (which is linked to the compulsion)
Right for police to search under PACE
Right to free legal advice to a detained person whilst in custody
Access to microwaved ready meals
that's not true though (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012)Got to say that I disagree. An arrest results in a permanent record of DNA and fingerprints on the police computers, and is disbarring for some professions.
this isn't necessarily what happened either. I've been arrested (didn't do it lol 😂) and I was neither handcuffed nor dragged anywhere. Everyone was very polite! The suspect could just have been arrested as part of whatever process the police need to follow. He probably got a ride in a police car, got interviewed, then released. If they were expecting him at the station he might not even have been put in a cell at any point. So it could have been quite civilised, and just a formality.What does dragging someone down to the police station in handcuffs, locking them in a cell
Each of the cars will be claiming off its own policy, and the building owner will be claiming off its policy, and that will be the end of it.
A nice little win for the insurers there then. Hundreds of people who now have to declare a total loss for the next five years, with the subsequent premium hike.
There's only a handful (four?) of underwriters for car insurance. I'd love a government intervention that required them to split the cost 4 ways (or in proportion to the claims) and leave every other victim with a clean record.
The fault should be either with the owner (only in the case of poor maintainance or modifications etc) or with JLR. Cars, when parked up and turned off, should not spontaneously combust.
There's an interesting bit of safety psychology at play here too.
People are very wary of risks they have no control over, yet are often very relaxed about taking risks over things they do control.
Take smart motorways, you're far safer on a smart/managed motorway, than you are on a conventional one. Unless you break down.
So you're far more likely to die as a result of "making progress" when there's no speed cameras, but people think "it won't happen to me" because their driving is obviously of an above average standard, they get bored at 70, or whatever bullshit they tell themselves that statistically we know isn't the case. Whereas tell them they have half that chance of dying in an accident that wasn't under their control if the car randomly breaks down and they're signing petitions to bring back hard shoulders.
~1050 cars get written off in accidents every day.
1500 extra cars get written off (probably outside your standard deviation, but not by even an order of magnitude) in a way that people view the owners as "victims" of something out of their control and we're calling for reform of the insurance industry and sprinkler systems to protect assets?
There’s only a handful (four?) of underwriters for car insurance. I’d love a government intervention that required them to split the cost 4 ways (or in proportion to the claims) and leave every other victim with a clean record.
It's alright, with Rishi Rich'es current crusade on behalf of the poor oppressed motorist I wouldn't bet* against it. There'll probably be sprinklers in car parks too before tower blocks.
*I'm not a gambler so I wouldn't bet on it either though.
Cars, when parked up and turned off, should not spontaneously combust.
Iirc it didn't, it was on fire before that.
Maybe [pure what iffery, no knowledge on my part beyond what's already on the thread] the enquiry has suggested it was on fire before the driver went into the carpark, eg it's visible on the entry cam. and thus the potential of a charge.
I can absolutely envisage a lot of people thinking they're not going to miss their holiday, entering the car park (or not trying to leave it), parking up and wandering off leaving their slightly smoking car to stop being so, (or at least stop being their problem) on its own time, rather than pull over, deal with it and miss their holiday - especially if the car has done something similar before.
