Mumsnet Talk

Some of the responses on this thread are downright bizarre!!

If I discovered someone had blocked me in in a car park, I would try to identify the person and ask them to move so I could get out, NOT smash their car, damaging it and then drive off. That is what any reasonable person would do.

If I saw somebody smashing into my car, I would probably shout out too to try and stop them. It's hardly a hysterical response. I doubt many people would just stand by and let it happen.

The only thing that perhaps wasn't particularly advisable was trying to grab the keys, but it's hardly a hanging offence.

CuttedUpPear: you didn't do anything wrong. Hope it all gets sorted.

I wonder if van driver was over the limit?

No problem Pear, it all seemed pretty straight-forward to me from your first post anyway

Hope the police and the insurance companies can sort it out quickly for you.

OP, I followed this thread this morning and was perplexed at how it went from you simply asking what to expect next after reporting to police, to people who decided the thread needed to assess right and wrong, and apportioning and even worse, victim blaming. I've seen victim blaming several times this week on MN and it makes me feel sick.
I didn't see your OP as hysterical, or confusing in any way.
I also agree that the Data Protection stuff they quoted, in this instance is rubbish.
I hope you get it all sorted out soon.

BoneyBackJefferson I don't know what your problem is but why don't you go back and read all of my posts, and then read FakePlasticLobsters post as well to elucidate the situation for you.

sarahtigh I don't know where you get the idea that I was hoping for the drivers name and address from their records. The office guy was stood watching as the driver drove off. I said to him "He wouldn't give me his details - do you know his name?" The office guy said they did know his name but they weren't going to tell me. And I don't think the 'right to be annoyed' will stand up in court somehow.

Also the rules about parking on private land are that if the car park holds more than three vehicles it is regarded by the law as Highways. I didn't know that until the police told me yesterday.

Another customer at the auction suggested that the other guy was a bigger spender than me - apparently he's been going there for years - and that was why they behaved as they did. Speculation of course.

FakePlasticLobsters thanks for taking the time to write all of that out - correctly as well. I was starting to think I was going mad with the doubting posters on here.

You do not have to register with ICO if you only keep paper records actually.

some of it is f course more about patient confidentiality that data protection but no-one is obliged to tell someone else info like that

they could say it was John smith but they could not say it is John smith just wait a minute I will get his name and address from our records, which was what OP was hoping for

Data protection also covers paper records not just stuff on a computer

also by telling police man etc he was john smith that is releasing info to police / ambulance not to random person if a 3rd party came running up and said oh I know him I'll wait here just tell me his wifes number I'll get in touch with her I would not say so or if he asked for medical history but if the patient had been in surgery or was in waiting room we would tell ambulance he is mr X he takes yyy tablets and had heart attack in 2005, but if he was actually just in street and we thought he maybe a patient but could not quite remember or we had 5 John smiths and although i remember he is J smith I can't be sure which is relevant record you keep quiet

OP is a random person to auction house if she asks for info about so called John Smith, if police turn up at auction house and say do you know the details of van driver etc that is different to telling OP

But Sarah, you show there you don't understand about the Data Protection Act. It covers personal data that you hold on a computer. Of course a dentist's office can't give out personal data. If one of them was knocked down outside the surgery, though, you could tell a police officer who it was.

The people in the auctioneer's office knew the man in the vehicle - that's nothing to do with the DPA. They could easily have said "That's John Smith" and not broken the law.

the auction house could not give OP his name it is against the data protection act they have to release the information if requested by police etc but it depends, I am a dentist and we would never ever give out patient details to anyone not to their boss who rings to check they were there nor to the school for same reason if police found appointment card at crime scene it would depend on crime whether it was released or not if vandalism etc we would call our defence union and they would advice that police got court order so we were protected from patient suing us if a serious crime like murder the info would be released to help enquiries

the other possibility is that auction house do not want to upset van driver as he is a big customer that spends serious money there, all auction houses are chaos at picking up time and blocking in happens all the time

the van driver does seem to have hit her car deliberately which is wrong whatever OP said or did it does not matter if you are blocked in you have a right to be annoyed perhaps tell someone to come and move their vehicle etc but not ram it which it seems was unnecessary as he managed to get out anyhow

rules about driving etc that happen no private land are different to public highway, generally if you hit a parked car it is 100% your fault however it was parked unless it was on like a blind corner when you could not reasonably have been expected to see it that clearly is not applicable here

Kiriwawa

No body has justified the bahaviour of the van driver.

I've been in a situation with a massive PLAC person. But he didn't leave a mobile number in his windscreen, nor was it somewhere where if I'd gone into the building, the porter would have said 'oh yes, that's CuttedUpPear's car. Let me ring her so she can move her car'.

That's what a reasonable person does. They don't smack the car. And then when the owner sees them (and can move their car out of the way!), doesn't smack the car again deliberately. This is deranged behaviour. It's not normal. And I cannot believe any of you are justifying it as reasonable. It's really disturbing that you think it's okay.

Kiriwawa

If you PLAC then you will eventually meet someone that will take offense, If you want to avoid me its simple.

I'm the person that always parks in the far corner of the carpark inbetween the lines and away from everybody else. Just so I don't have to put up with people that PLAC.

I got accosted by a man on Valentines Day 2009 in car park. He threw open my car door and shouted at me. I guessed because he did not get a Val card. The next time it happened on a remote roundabout and the driver in front of me shouted at me through my car window. The next time I had my car door locked and he tried it, got frustrated, treated me to tirade, while other motorists clapped and jeered. Got home and useless husband could not have cared less. Always drive with locked doors now. WTF is wrong with some drivers?

WTF is wrong with some people on this thread? This is a man who aggressively smashed into a car that was vaguely in his way. And some people are thinking that the owner of the car he smashed into is in the wrong.

Thank you for your very lucid and calm summary fake. It's probably wasted time though as some people seem to think it's okay to smash other people's cars if they're in your way.

Do tell me where you live BoneyBack so I can avoid you in a car park

The difference between a friend saying its ok park on the corner is that the corner is a public highway.

The auction house was private land so the porter told the op where to park. They supposedly had contr if how vehicles parked and left. Not the same at all.

If she caused an obstruction, it was obviously so slight that the driver assumed he could still safely get into his car and drive away without hitting hers.

Or alternatively he knew he couldn't safely drive away but instead chose to touch, bump into and eventually dent her car on purpose to prove a point.

Touching might not equal damage but a dent he caused and then tried to push out with his hands does.

She says she knows his car came into contact with hers twice that she was there to see, possibly more when she wasn't, possibly not. But at least twice. I don't think she said more damage was caused before she arrived, just that he might have connected with her car more than twice.

I haven't said she is absolved of responsibility if she parked parked badly and caused an obstruction. But he was the one who came back to his van, saw her car parked beside it, badly or not, and chose to continue hitting it even after she came back and told him she would move it.

Fake
If I went to a friends house and they said "its ok park on the corner" and I did it would not absolve me from responsiblity if there was an accident/incident.

The Police will see it as causing an obstruction and if an accident is deemed to be caused by a badly parked car it will be claimed off that cars insurance. (my ex landlord did this)

The OP doesn't know if any damage was caused before she got there, she just says that the cars where touching.

Touching does not equal damage.

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether the OP was causing a slight obstruction, the laws do not suddenly change and then say you can smash into another vehicle as its causing an obstruction.

The only people who can use their vehicles to move another out the way if there was an obstruction are the emergency services.

I think what Pear has said is that she was told to park in a particular space by the porter at the auction.

Parking in that space meant that the van driver's exit was slightly blocked by her car, but was obviously still possible for him to get the van out without her moving it as he did manage to leave the space eventually without Pear moving her car.

The porter knew her car was blocking the van when he told her to park there, and he knew who the van belonged to, and had agreed with Pear that he knew where to find her if the van driver wanted her to move.

The driver had already hit Pear's car with his van at least once by the time she came back, as she could see the vehicles in contact with each other. I think that's what she means by "for the first time I assume", because she was only there to see it twice but it could have happened more than that before she arrived.

She asked the driver to wait while she moved her car, he refused and drove into her car again, while Pear shouted a warning to him that he was going to crash into her car and he ignored her.

He then tried to fix the damage with his hands and then attempted to drive off for a third time, this time with Pear trying to stop him and take his keys because she thought he would hit her car again.

He finally managed to drive out of the space without hitting her car again and then he refused to stop and swap details for the damage he had caused to her car.

I'm not sure why you are getting such a hard time here Pear. You parked where you were asked, and the porter knew who owned both vehicles and had agreed to fetch you if you were needed to move your car.

There was no need for the van driver to hit your car for a second time when you were standing right there offering to move to make it easier for him to get out. Your car was hit twice that you are aware of and possibly more. I can't imagine many people calmly standing and watching that happen to their own cars without trying to intervene.

car not cause

the police and insurance companies, will look at it that it is 100% his fault because the OP wasn't even in her car

Not necessarily. The OP was causing an obstruction with where she parked her cause so may have to accept some liability.

Sorry boney I didn't mean to imply that, that's what you said.

My point was that the circumstances surrounding it wouldn't matter so much, as the police and insurance companies, will look at it that it is 100% his fault because the OP wasn't even in her car.

Also having an independent witness will help greatly, he doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

Tired
I have never said that he shouldn't

Boney regardless, he has still obviously caused damage to her vehicle, so he needs to take responsibility.