yup that is exactly how a lot of people seem to roll these days, unfortunately!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,
S24 PACE provides the right for police to arrest, without warrant, for all offences.
But only in cases where identification is in question, no? ie when someone is believed to have given false details, or is refusing to give details.
But only in cases where identification is in question, no? ie when someone is believed to have given false details, or is refusing to give details.
Would that cover "were you driving the car?" "..."
"is this you in this video?"
"..."
Again not suggesting it is the case but if the person who jumped out of the drivers seat didn't look like the insured driver, or looked like someone who happened to be disqualified etc. they may be reluctant to answer those sorts of questions.
There's a lot of reasons an arrest could have been appropriate but that we'd have absolutely no way of knowing.
He was arrested for criminal damage, which always was an 'arrestable offence'. Not for a driving offence. My question was whether arrest powers extended to every offence, even if you verified your identity etc and cooperated fully.
Power of arrest extends to all offences of the conditions of S24 of PACE apply.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24
If you cooperate fully there may be no necessity to arrest for fairly simple matters. Necessity is a requirement for an arrest.
Interesting, thanks. There are a couple of sub-sections in there which seem to be a bit of a 'catch-all' - 'to allow prompt and effective investigation of a person's conduct' etc.
There should always be checks and restraints on the circumstances in which you can be detained or arrested by the state. Seems to me there aren't all that many now, and that it is a matter for the discretion of the individual officer (which is not always a good thing).
Liability cover excludes consequential losses which is exactly what this is a series of
Thats not what is meant by consequential losses in an exclusion. Liability is based on what is reasonably forseeable. If my car catches fire in a car park, is it reasonably forseeable that others cars may be damaged....
Because they thought that a crime may have been committed?
Makes you wonder though based upon what ? There would be zero evidence off a car which probably reached 1500 degrees centigrade 😆
There’s only a handful (four?) of underwriters for car insurance.
Not even close.
This isn't even remotely a big claim in the grand scheme of things. Everyone with a car insurance policy will pay slightly more as a result... But that's how insurance works.
It might seem a bit obtuse, but government involvement in insurance can have unintended consequences. Eg the government backed Pool Re scheme which reinsures property damage from terrorist events makes a very tidy amount every year for the Treasury.
Things like the Westminster Bridge attack were paid for by an insurer, as it was mostly personal injury caused by a terrorist driving a hire vehicle. I think Allianz picked it up from memory, don't know about the Tower Bridge one.
Liability is based on what is reasonably forseeable.
It may well be, but a liability policy won't respond to a claim for consequential loss.
If there's a closeness in space and time then the losses are assumed to flow. But there is a limit.
The first car probably didn't set fire to the 1499th, for example.
Can someone furnish me with a list of states and professions from which you can be barred for being arrested? Last I checked an arrest is not proof of guilt and the US only cares about actual convictions.
"It may well be, but a liability policy won’t respond to a claim for consequential loss.
If there’s a closeness in space and time then the losses are assumed to flow. But there is a limit.
The first car probably didn’t set fire to the 1499th, for example."
Thats not how it works. Sorry.
Morecashthandash
Associate, Chartered Insurance Institute
Chartered Insurer
(Former) Claims Manager
Thats not how it works. Sorry.
Morecashthandash
Associate, Chartered Insurance Institute
Chartered Insurer
I assume that means you've got a better idea of how it doesn't work than we do but in terms of how it does actually work you're as in the dark as the rest of us? 😉
I don't know much about active fire protection systems like sprinklers. You do see them in multistories.
Passive fire protection is fairly rare. There were attempts to get it fitted as standard but as theain arguements are around evacuation times rather than asset protection it's not mandated. Where I know it is used it is often the wrong type. Peop seem to want to specify the building type (cellulosic) rather than o+g type (hydrocarbon). The fires are more solar to the latter.
In any case I can't imagine many engineers declaring a structure is safe after several hours of fire. Protection or not. Too many unknowns.
Comment that car park fires are rare... but I can think of three in the last few years ... and all caused by diesels .
Ban them?
Ban them?
If we ban carparks it'll just mean more people [s] dumping [/s] parking their car on the road.
Last I checked an arrest is not proof of guilt and the US only cares about actual convictions.
Last I checked you need a visa to enter the USA if you've been arrested. Which would be a bit of a pisser if you regularly travelled on an ESTA, especially if you had an upcoming trip planned that was abruptly prohibited.
Yes I know this isn't necessarily the end of the world, but it could be a very annoying and expensive inconvenience. I wouldn't want to be subjected to it just for the convenience of a policeman.
I don't think you have a choice to be arrested or not.
Police personnel. Your under arrest .
Joe blogs . No I'm not .
Police personnel. AHH , my mistake, as you were.
Thats not how it works. Sorry
Please forgive me if the necessity to keep responses on here quite short means I haven't hit the spot. What I'm trying, and failing, to get over is that this almost certainly isn't a liability exposure. It's pure property damage and everyone will be likely carrying and claiming from their own cover.
Rich_s
10m breaststroke and bar.
GCSE woodwork.
Former fluffer.
The conspiracy theory stuff has sucked me in I admit. After initial claims it was a Tesla, everyone moved seamlessly onto it being a Range Rover EV, then when that was debunked instantly it was a hybrid. Now the Official Internet I Am Very Clever answer is that it was a hybrid but also that The Powers That Be have covered it up and changed all the records... Because, uh, reasons. Of course "diesel doesn't burn" and "diesel cars don't burn like that" and "no multi story car park has ever burned like that before" because everyone is an expert in car fires and apparently a whole lot of people had never seen a car go on fire before. I've also learned that electric cars aren't allowed on ferrys (and coincidentally neither is my LPG car apparently)
And then just when you're starting to wonder "but why would anyone even do a cover up?", it turns out that OF COURSE it's all related to cashless and 15 minute cities and the world economic forum is going to make you eat bugs. Should have realised.
Now the Official Internet I Am Very Clever answer
Hold on, let me just hang up my Urban Warfare Expert hat, give me a second...
a whole lot of people had never seen a car go on fire before
For shame
And then just when you’re starting to wonder “but why would anyone even do a cover up?”, it turns out that OF COURSE it’s all related to cashless and 15 minute cities and the world economic forum is going to make you eat bugs. Should have realised.
Yup that and it’s so they can control you charging you car to stop you travelling, because it’s impossible to ration petrol.
Wow. Makes you think.
because it’s impossible to ration petrol
Wow no need to be sarcastic.
Some of us are prepared. I've been filling my basement with jerry cans for years now. When the electromagnetic pulses happen and you're eating grasshopper fricasee, I'll be bombing around burning dino juice 😎
dangeourbrain
Full MemberFor shame
That's perfectly legitimate scottish regionalisation, "go on fire" "went on fire" etc. I am being oppressed!
“go on fire”
Is something you might say when rubbing two sticks together, or when your car won't start.
I’ve been filling my basement with jerry cans for years now
tank it properly and just pour the petrol in - you'll fit loads more
That’s perfectly legitimate scottish regionalisation, “go on fire” “went on fire” etc. I am being oppressed!
Northern Ireland too, I believe...especially wheb there is a bit of mystery around how the conflagration started.
"Did you see that listed 18th century inn went on fire the other night, Malcolm?"
"I expect the developer will be at the town hall with a fresh planning application on Monday morning, Hamish".
The airport are certainly doing all they can to use market forces to 'make the best of it'.
Same weekend in Jan (2025 vs 2024), same entry and exit times, car park 1 has gone from £77 to £98 - that's a 27% increase - I doubt the prices will drop once CP2's rebuilt so the cynic in me says the fire will be a nice little earner for them, especially as the rebuild costs will be covered by their insurer along with any loss of earnings.
The subsequent fire investigation confirmed that the vehicle
was powered by a diesel non-hybrid internal combustion engine.
I'm not an expert but I am a fan of knee-jerk reactions, so it sounds to me like all diesel vehicles should be banned from car parks.
Obviously the car has its own insurance (hopefully, but it is being driven by a Range Rover driver flying out of Luton after all), but does Jaguar Landrover share any liability for the fire?
Interesting that it says the owner tried to put out the fire, so it was always known what sort of car it was (at least to the Police/Fire).
Interesting that it says the owner tried to put out the fire, so it was always known what sort of car it was (at least to the Police/Fire).
It's been known for some time and yet just recently I had a conversation with someone where the 'EV fire at Luton Airport' came up - they were genuinely surprised it wasn't but it shows how once a mistruth starts to circulate it's hard to correct and too easy to propagate.
The remaining carpark is also now painfully slow to get into as at present the exit from the drop-off has to cross paths with the car-park queue and loop round a one-way section to exit. Just what you want at 4am on a Sunday when it's hoofing it down with rain before your flight (which is then delayed by 90 minutes because of the aforementioned rain).
I hate using that airport.
That report is interesting. Good to see the fire services are so self-reflective and capable of learning from incidents. Very professional.
Meanwhile at Luton free dropoff and pickup is now a 10 minute walk away from the building presumably due to the diesel fire. I got in at 10pm the other night to find it heaving it down. I set off for the free pickup via the usual walk only to be told half way round that 'this route is closed, you need to go the other way round the bus station'. Round I go, it's still pissing down and this route doesn't even try to give you temporary cover. Under the underpass and out the other side, it's now biblical. Mrs W isn't there yet so I head for the only dry area - a white tent. Joy of joys (not), the only dry area is the smokers tent. I head out into the dank dark night and flag mrs W down to be told by an officious person that she can't stop there.
