This fire at Luton Airport car park

They ask the owner some questions, and ask to see the car’s service records. And the owner refuses to provide them.

Is not have car serviced a criminal offence? Mine are kept in glove box……………does anyone actually keep gloves in there 🤔

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

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.

that’s not true though (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012)

What does dragging someone down to the police station in handcuffs, locking them in a cell

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.

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.

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,

yup that is exactly how a lot of people seem to roll these days, unfortunately!

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.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/authorisations/which-firms-does-the-pra-regulate/2022/list-of-authorised-insurers/list-of-uk-insurers-january-2022.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwim4qHrm5GCAxUmQEEAHVJ8ABQQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw09c8M7Rnc4KOTGvPaSInFB

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 dumping 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.