driving on site

[macmac]

Does anyone have any experience of one plotholder "pranging" another plotholders car?Does the comittee have any say in the proceedings ?

[macmac]

[Robert_Brenchley]

Thee was a plotholder once who drove into me twice, the second time pranging my wheelbarrow. But I've no experience of punchups between cars.

[cornykev]

My mate Bart on the lottie had his bumper broken by someone backing into him, he bought a new one and fitted it himself and the bloke weighed him out the £70 it cost.  ;D ;D ;D

[davyw1]

Does anyone have any experience of one plotholder "pranging" another plotholders car?Does the comittee have any say in the proceedings ?

I doudt if it has anything to do with the committee and if its not on a road its not an accident either.

[Tee Gee]

I had an incident where I was reversing out of the site and another plot holder was reversing in.

Trouble was; our eyes were on an obstacle we didn't want to hit so we were both looking over one shoulder to avoid it, where had we been looking normally we would have seen each other and avoided the collision.

We just exchanged insurers and it was settled on a knock for knock basis.

[Mr Smith]

I was run over by a car on private property the guy drove off but someone got his number and guess what because it was on private property the coppers did not want to know,

[taurus]

Nothing new there then ::)

[Unwashed]

Not sure what the question is.  Two questions the committee should ask is what duty of care do they owe, and to whom; and what do the rules have to say - I'm asuming the site is self-managed:

Mostly a prang between two cars on site has nothing to do with the committee, but it might.

Say one of the cars was parked where the rules say it shouldn't have been.  The committee would be obliged to enforce the rule.  If the committee had made a habit of not enforcing the rule and there was an accident because a car was wrongly parked, then the committee might be found liable for the accident.  If there was a forseeable situation that the committee should have addressed with a rule and didn't, then again they might be found liable.  If one of the drivers had a bit of road-rage then this is an issue for the committee as there's very likely a rule about acceptable behaviour.

The committe have a (both common-law and statutory) duty of care to tenants and visitors.  Say the committee asked someone to strim the common areas and the strimmer threw up a stone which damaged a car, it's likely the committee would be liable for the damage.  Say the committee were aware of a large pot hole that had opened up in the drive and they did nothing about it and a car damaged itself, again they'd likely be liable.

None of this specifically applies to cars, it's any damage to anything.

If the committee employ people then they owe a duty of care to their employees, and there is a significant amout of legislation about that.