Help! NCP Ice Accident

[Poggers30]

Hi,

 

I wonder if anyone can help me.

 

I parked in a NCP carpark in Manchester, obviously the weather has been terrible today. I left work at 18:30 today, when I got to the carpark it was more or less empty. I paid for my ticket, as I approached the ticket barrier and applied my foot to the break, my car wouldn't stop.... I ended up going through the barrier! I wasn't able to wait around as I had to collect my young son and was already late. I called NCP on the way home (handsfree) I didn't want them to think I was just driving off. They said I have to call back tomorrow as I need to fill an incident form out. (They have CCTV)

 

The carpark was so icy, since the snow yesterday they have not gritted it therefore it is leathel! Obviously by the time I left most had gone home and the tracks other cars had left had turned into a skating rink! (The approach to the barrier is also slightly down hill which didn't help!)

 

I'm just wondering if I am liable for this?

 

Anyhelp would be appreciated!

 

Many Thanks

[green_and_mean]

They have a duty of care to ensure you are not injured etc if they claim just counter claim negligence for failing to grit, put out warning signs.

[K-stand]

my wife broke her ankle on a minor icey council owned car park. we couldn't claim because it was a small council owned car park and they only have to grit large major ones..

[green_and_mean]

my wife broke her ankle on a minor icey council owned car park. we couldn't claim because it was a small council owned car park and they only have to grit large major ones..

 

Thats rubbish the Council may only have a duty to grit the main highway but a car park is not the same they have a duty of care just as if you drowned in a council swimming pool or fell over something in the town hall.

[Mossycat]

I'm sorry to say this but you are 100% liable for the accident and the subsequent damage you caused.

 

Ice/snow etc if left untouched is an Act of God, NCP have no duty or responsibility to either grit or shovel the snow/ice away. It was there for all to see and your duty as a driver was to ensure it was safe to proceed and you were in control of the vehicle and able to stop safely.

 

I've dealt with quite a few liability claims on public land, and unless the landowner or agent has interfered with the fallen snow (ie by trying to clear it etc) then they are in no way responsible.

 

The onus was on you and you alone to take care, even more so because you were aware that the weather conditions were adverse. You have no counter claim (well not one that will stand up anyway)

 

Mossy

[K-stand]

Originally Posted by K-stand

my wife broke her ankle on a minor icey council owned car park. we couldn't claim because it was a small council owned car park and they only have to grit large major ones..

 

Thats rubbish the Council may only have a duty to grit the main highway but a car park is not the same they have a duty of care just as if you drowned in a council swimming pool or fell over something in the town hall.

 

Sorry you think thats rubbish, but thats what the council said was there policy.. And our legal team checked up and it was correct...

[green_and_mean]

I'm sorry to say this but you are 100% liable for the accident and the subsequent damage you caused.

 

Ice/snow etc if left untouched is an Act of God, NCP have no duty or responsibility to either grit or shovel the snow/ice away. It was there for all to see and your duty as a driver was to ensure it was safe to proceed and you were in control of the vehicle and able to stop safely.

 

I've dealt with quite a few liability claims on public land, and unless the landowner or agent has interfered with the fallen snow (ie by trying to clear it etc) then they are in no way responsible.

 

The onus was on you and you alone to take care, even more so because you were aware that the weather conditions were adverse. You have no counter claim (well not one that will stand up anyway)

 

Mossy

 

Not true at all the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 makes it the owners liability to ensure the area is safe. If there was a freak snow shower in july they would have a defence but they (ncp) should have expected it to be icy and taken adequate steps to ensure visitors safety. Various case law such as Bond v Derby county council.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by K-stand

my wife broke her ankle on a minor icey council owned car park. we couldn't claim because it was a small council owned car park and they only have to grit large major ones..

 

 

Thats rubbish the Council may only have a duty to grit the main highway but a car park is not the same they have a duty of care just as if you drowned in a council swimming pool or fell over something in the town hall.

 

Sorry you think thats rubbish, but thats what the council said was there policy.. And our legal team checked up and it was correct...

 

The Council are hardly going to admit liability are they?

[green_and_mean]

Dorothy Elizabeth Munro v. Aberdeen City Council [2009] CSOH 129

 

In this action the pursuer sought damages from the defenders, her employers, after she slipped on ice in a car par in Aberdeen on 1 March 2004 during the course of her employment. Here at proof all the evidence was agreed by way of a joint minute of admissions, including inter alia that the car park was part of her workplace in terms of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The only issue related to statutory interpretation. Quantum was agreed at £150,000, which included a quarter discount for contributory negligence in the event that the pursuer was successful in relation to the issue of interpretation. The interpretation issue related to regulation 5(1) of the 1992 Regulations which states:- "The workplace ... shall be maintained (including cleaned as appropriate) in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair." It was submitted on behalf of the defenders that regulation 5(1) did not apply and the relevant regulation was 12(3) as there is a distinction between structural defects in a workplace, which attract absolute liability, and transient hazards where the employer's duty is qualified. Here the pursuer's case was not based upon regulation 12(3) but on a breach of the absolute duty laid down in regulation 5(1). It was submitted on behalf of the pursuer that the ice presented an obvious and real risk to users of the car park and with the pursuer slipping on the ice resulting in injury, and with the defenders accepting that the car park was part of the pursuer's place of work, it followed that the defenders were in breach of regulation 5(1) by not maintaining the car park in an efficient state. Here the court considered which regulation the pursuer had a claim under and the defenders' obligations and duties for long-term dangers and their qualified duties for more short-lived transient conditions as in the present case.

 

 

Whilst not directly transferable due to it being employers liability it disproves the 'act of god' argument.

[postggj]

Put My Two Cents In

 

We Have A Very Bad A Road In My Town

 

It Gets Like Glass In Bad Wheather

 

Council Cant Afford To Resurface So It Just Put A Sign Up Saying Slippery Surface

 

If Anybody Now Has An Accident, They Cant Sue The Council Because The Put The Sign Up

 

 

What Ime Asking Is The Council Have An Obligation Under Health And Safety To Make Sure The Road Is In A Fit And Proper Condition

Putting The Sign Up Invalidates That

 

Would That Be The Same For Say Ncp, Just Put A Sign Up Saying Slippery When Wet For Instance

[green_and_mean]

Put My Two Cents In

 

We Have A Very Bad A Road In My Town

 

It Gets Like Glass In Bad Wheather

 

Council Cant Afford To Resurface So It Just Put A Sign Up Saying Slippery Surface

 

If Anybody Now Has An Accident, They Cant Sue The Council Because The Put The Sign Up

 

 

What Ime Asking Is The Council Have An Obligation Under Health And Safety To Make Sure The Road Is In A Fit And Proper Condition

Putting The Sign Up Invalidates That

 

Would That Be The Same For Say Ncp, Just Put A Sign Up Saying Slippery When Wet For Instance

 

The Council only have a limited liability under Section 111 of the Railways & Transport Safety Act 2003. This imposes a duty on the highway authority to “ensure, so far as is reasonable practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice”. The so far as is reasonable gives them plenty of scope to wiggle out of resposibility. NCP have a duty to take adequate precuations, this would be determined by the risk amongst other factors. If the car park was on the edge of a 100 foot high cliff a little sign stating that fact would probably not be adequate railings would be needed. However if there was a risk of the barrier coming down and bashing you on the head a simple signage stating do not walk under barrier would be deemed suitable.

[postggj]

elegent as usual

 

thanks

[Poggers30]

Thanks for all your replys!

 

There was nosign in place and in fairness no damage to my car...

 

I'm just a little concerned that they may want to charge me for damage to the barrier?!

 

On another note, I pay £5 per day to park...5 days per week ...

 

Add it up.... There's a fair few cars on this car park, surely they can afford a little grit to make it safe!!!

 

Anyways...on a happy note, I wish you all a merry christmas! Drive safely!!!

 

 

[Al27]

We've seen a similar case before from NCP.

 

They merely lumped the alleged damage in with their parking ticket [problem] claim system.

 

Sit tight and wait to see if you receive anything. If there is damage and they want it repairing, they should send you some quotes.

 

If they're playing silly beggars they'll try to trick you into paying random amounts of money with no justification. In this instance you'd just ignore them.

[Mossycat]

Dorothy Elizabeth Munro v. Aberdeen City Council [2009] CSOH 129

 

In this action the pursuer sought damages from the defenders, her employers, after she slipped on ice in a car par in Aberdeen on 1 March 2004 during the course of her employment. Here at proof all the evidence was agreed by way of a joint minute of admissions, including inter alia that the car park was part of her workplace in terms of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The only issue related to statutory interpretation. Quantum was agreed at £150,000, which included a quarter discount for contributory negligence in the event that the pursuer was successful in relation to the issue of interpretation. The interpretation issue related to regulation 5(1) of the 1992 Regulations which states:- "The workplace ... shall be maintained (including cleaned as appropriate) in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair." It was submitted on behalf of the defenders that regulation 5(1) did not apply and the relevant regulation was 12(3) as there is a distinction between structural defects in a workplace, which attract absolute liability, and transient hazards where the employer's duty is qualified. Here the pursuer's case was not based upon regulation 12(3) but on a breach of the absolute duty laid down in regulation 5(1). It was submitted on behalf of the pursuer that the ice presented an obvious and real risk to users of the car park and with the pursuer slipping on the ice resulting in injury, and with the defenders accepting that the car park was part of the pursuer's place of work, it followed that the defenders were in breach of regulation 5(1) by not maintaining the car park in an efficient state. Here the court considered which regulation the pursuer had a claim under and the defenders' obligations and duties for long-term dangers and their qualified duties for more short-lived transient conditions as in the present case.

 

 

Whilst not directly transferable due to it being employers liability it disproves the 'act of god' argument.

 

So by your logic then any driver who skids on ice is not responsible for the damage they do and passes the blame to the owner of the land or the local council?

 

So any driver who leaves his car parked in a street and then gets hit by another car then claims off the landowner or the Council and NOT the driver of the car???????

 

Hey why stop at snow and ice, that will also by definition then apply to rain etc.

 

I'm sorry G&M but you are wrong, the NCP have a valid claim against the driver of teh car that caused the damage, the case you cited does not apply in this instance (the OP hasn't suffered injuries he has caused damage to another person's property through his negligence)

 

Mossy

[Steve__M]

In g&m's case, I suspect the fact that the claimant was an employee is indeed important, so they were in a sense compelled to be where they were. I note that they accepted that they were partially negligent.

 

As Al says, ignore anything other than a proper attempt to justify a fair cost to repair the barrier such as a penalty for failure to adhere to terms and conditions.

[Poggers30]

I'm actually female ....

 

To be fair there are many things that happen in life that are unfair... I'm not quite sure how I could have avoided what happened though as it was beyond my control...maybe I should have just sat in the car all night and waited?!

 

One of my collegues left much earlier than me on the same day and apparently nearly did the same thing...it was just colder when I left.

 

I just believe that they provide me with a service of which I pay for, therefore it isn't unreasonable to expect safety? I'm sure I'm not the 1st to do this and probably won't be the last.

 

Hey ho... such is life!

[StrawDog]

Ice/snow etc if left untouched is an Act of God,

 

How do you go about suing God?

 

(the OP hasn't suffered injuries he has caused damage to another person's property through his negligence)

 

That's a tad unfair & judgemental - you've obviously never experienced trying to control a vehicle, even at less than walking pace, on snow & ice.

 

There has to be some contributory negligence by NCP leaving a barrier in the down position in such adverse weather conditions - but hey, I accept I'm no expert in such matters.

[Poggers30]

How do you go about suing God?

 

 

 

That's a tad unfair & judgemental - you've obviously never experienced trying to control a vehicle, even at less than walking pace, on snow & ice.

 

There has to be some contributory negligence by NCP leaving a barrier in the down position in such adverse weather conditions - but hey, I accept I'm no expert in such matters.

 

Thanks...I'm a good driver..honest! I wouldn't choose for my brand new car to slide through a barrier...I wouldn't mind but I'd paid for the bloomin ticket I only needed to put it in the machine!!

 

Anyways I'm taking Al's advice..I'll wait for them to contact me ..

 

Thanks

[StrawDog]

Just a thought Poggers, but under the probable t&c of your car insurance policy, it might be a good idea to inform your insurance company & seek their advice.

[Mossycat]

 

That's a tad unfair & judgemental - you've obviously never experienced trying to control a vehicle, even at less than walking pace, on snow & ice.

 

There has to be some contributory negligence by NCP leaving a barrier in the down position in such adverse weather conditions - but hey, I accept I'm no expert in such matters.

 

I've had my share of scares on ice, but I was answetring the OP's questions from a liability point of view. My expertise is in dealing with claims, particularly motor claims.

 

The NCP did nothing wrong, they provided a service, ie car parking. The OP was in control of a motor vehicle, she lost control of it through negligence (ie she failed to control it is a safe manner and as a result damage to property ensued, nobody else was involved).

 

Mossy

[StrawDog]

You can be liable without being negligent - there are significant contributory factors at play here which you appear to dismiss as irrelevant.

 

Perhaps the OP should be charged with careless driving & criminal damage - the elements of these offences are certainly present according to your interpretation of the incident.

[buzby]

I'm with Mossy on this. The result of the skid was accidental and clearly the OP had no intention of causing the damage. However, whether through ice in all its forms, diesel slick. blind bend or whatever - if damage is caused, then the person who causes it will be liable. Trying to lay off all (or just some) of the blame for non starter.

 

It could just as easily be argued that as there were temperatures or cold winds prior to the OP getting into their vehicle, they should have been aware of the possibility of ice, and to take the appropriate actions.

 

Let the insurers take the strain - and hopefully it won't turn into a saga like the other 'broken barrier' incident!

[Mossycat]

You can be liable without being negligent - there are significant contributory factors at play here which you appear to dismiss as irrelevant.

 

Perhaps the OP should be charged with careless driving & criminal damage - the elements of these offences are certainly present according to your interpretation of the incident.

 

OK lets break this down.

 

The OP was in charge of a motor vehicle

 

Nobody else was involved

 

The barrier was there for all to see and was stationary in a fixed position.

 

There was inclement weather and ice was present, or could reasonably have been expected to be present.

 

The car struck and caused damage to the barrier.

 

There are NO OTHER relevent or contributory factors

 

Those are the facts, the actions of the OP are the sole cause of the damage, the OP failed to control her vehicle in a safe manner, she failed to appreciate the ice (that is negligence).

 

I'm sorry if it sounds harsh or it's not what you wanted to hear, but sometimes reality is harsh.

 

Consider this, if it hadn't been the barrier but a person the OP skidded into, ie yourself or someone you know would you hold NCP liable or would you hold the driver responsible for the injuries?

 

And if you want to get into legalities, it was not criminal damage but accidental damage, it was not careless or reckless driving but it was most certainly driving without due care and attention, because had the OP exercised proper due care and attention then the barrier would not have been damaged.

 

Mossy

[letshelp]

Perhaps the OP should be charged with careless driving & criminal damage - the elements of these offences are certainly present according to your interpretation of the incident.

Try running that past the cops, I will hear them laughing from here.

regards