I don't believe it!!

[glabus]

Hi again All
Just looked thru the HC threads and will be coming back to them soon but as we have had a death of a relative to be dealt with as priority it isn't today:sad2:
I DID want to mention something I read about on hols.
A guy wrote in to a motoring supplement with this!
It seems that he needed to turn round and, in doing so; he 'entered' the premises forecourt area of a ?factory?. He completed his turn and went on his way but.... he had noticed a chap in the yard watching him (possibly taking pics?)
A little while later he got a bill from said Company for some £300 plus in apparent complaint that he had unlawfully used their site (etc etc.)
This WAS in UK!!!
He was advised to send them a tenner in goodwill and state that IF they wished to continue the stupidity he would see them in small claims Court.
Unbielevable???? Or has anyone heard or had similar experience??

 

[pgarner]

ohh the joys of England. fortunately trespassing laws dont exist in Scotland so there is nothing the company could have done unless he opened closed gates

downside to this is a mate used to park his wagon on private ground - he had an agreement with the owner and paid a small amount of rent - suddenly alot of other wagons started parking there and the owner couldnt do anything about it, even though it had private land signs up, because there wasnt locked gates at the entrance

 

[obi_waynne]

Petty! Not good PR for the company but it might be a case of them being sick of people using their land, although I can't see an issue with turning round.

Did you have a nice break?

 

[old-git]

I think that, if there were no signs advising of a charge or no trespassing, any English court would throw it out as he hasn't done anything unlawful. I wouldn't even send them any money but a counter claim for £500 for the stress caused by their actions!

As an aside, how did they find the driver's name and address? DVLA won't supply it. No criminal act has been committed so the police wouldn't be interested.

Or, maybe, we don't know all of the story.

 

[geraint13]

I think that, if there were no signs advising of a charge or no trespassing, any English court would throw it out as he hasn't done anything unlawful. I wouldn't even send them any money but a counter claim for £500 for the stress caused by their actions!

As an aside, how did they find the driver's name and address? DVLA won't supply it. No criminal act has been committed so the police wouldn't be interested.

Or, maybe, we don't know all of the story.

how did they find the drivers name and address ? fredom of information act maybe ? its all rubbish though !!!

 

[HDi fun]

The Freedom of Information Act is not quite that liberal. Sounds rather petty to me. Trespass is not a statutory offence, even in England.

You cannot be charged with trespass alone. It has to be in conjunction with another offence that happened as a result of the act of trespass.

Or, more accurately, an offence which you could not have committed had you not trespassed.

So the 'Trespassers will be Prosecuted' signs are in fact worthless.

As are the 'All shoplifters will be prosecuted" signs. What about the shoplifters who leave the premises undetected, along with the booty?

They're not prosecuted if they're not caught.

I think that the organisation which sent this letter threatening a £300 charge, yet willing to take a tenner as a 'goodwill gesture' is guilty of extortion and blackmail.

 

[geraint13]

these signs are just a deterrent. know frm past experience and the less said of that the better lol. (misspent youth).

as for the tresspasing then i think in this instance is a scam. why would you try to charge sumone 300 quid but accept a tenner. sounds iffy to me and would write back and tell em to do one and find out how they got name and address. thats what would be bothering me the most.

 

[HDi fun]

Just segue straight to court action for misuse of personal data. The Data Protection Act conflicts quite conveniently with the Freedom of Informaction Act.

 

[old-git]

An FOI request will NOT get you vehicle owner details. There is personal information protection written into the Act.

In my previous life as a worker we removed any personal details that could identify members of the public when responding to a request for details on for example, planning applications which included objections etc.

The company asked for £300 but didn't say it would accept £10, this was just a suggestion from a third party.

 

[glabus]

It seems that this garnered quite a few replies
I was only giving a resume of a story in the Guardian motoring supplement so I do not have any more details myself.
How did they get name etc?
Was the story true?
I don't know!!
Some of you have given theoretical or real beliefs as to why getting the info to try to collect the cash would/could not happen
IF the story is true (and why publish without verification???) then obviously they could
Might be that the driver or the car were known to someone at the Company and knew where he lived!
As a matter of interest has anyone tried to find out info on THEMSELVES from DPA dept?? I tried, to be told that that info was not able to be disclosed
Many organisations can access the Act to get details on me but, apparently; I cannot get to find out if any of that info is incorrect
(to Waynne) Yes thanks we did have good hols despite idiot on R/about!!
but coming home to learn of the death has been a bit of a shock and we are still in process of sorting things out:sad2::sad2:

 

[old-git]

IF the story is true (and why publish without verification???) then obviously they could

Publishing without verification is a standard procedure in British tabloid papers