Surely this is illegal...

Max Power1

Del2005 wrote: »

There's no law against parking on the public road outside a persons house, despite what some people think.

You may not restrict access to someone's property.

You may, however, park on the verge outside someones property providing it does not restrict access.

TouchingVirus

So because the driver is ignorant of the law he deserves to have his car wrecked? You've never thrown your car onto a double yellow to run into the shop really quick? You've never pulled out onto a yellow box in traffic only to get caught and have to stop on it? Do you expect when the lights go green at the junction the other driver is fully entitled to ram your car off the box? Come on..

Sure, the driver deserves a tow, a parking fine but they don't deserve what actually happened.

spockety

Stekelly wrote: »

The lanway looks to be on to a public road. I dont know what procedures and red tape would have to be followed to allow a private company erect bollards and chains on a public road but I'd say it's more complicated than just going out and sticking them up yourself. Plus the associated costs to the company that they shouldnt have to bear.

Have you a similar chain and bollard system on the road outside your house to prevent parking?

No, because I don't need it.

But if I felt I was getting angry enough about it that I would go out and f**k up someone's car on them for doing it, then I would probably look for a more non-violent approach before going down that road. You never know what kind of nutcase owns the car you are tarring and feathering.

TouchingVirus

TouchingVirus wrote: »

So because the driver is ignorant of the law he deserves to have his car wrecked? Come on..

Who said that ?

TouchingVirus

RoverJames wrote: »

Who said that ?

It doesn't have to be said, it's being implied by the "no sympathy" brigade. I'd say if it was their car they wouldn't shrug and say "Well, I deserved that. What was I thinking by blocking an entrance". Oh, but then again they'd never park there, so the issue wouldn't arise :rolleyes:

SerialComplaint

Max Power1 wrote: »

You may, however, park on the verge outside someones property providing it does not restrict access.

If you mean the grass verge on the path, then no - you can't. Parking on any part of the path is illegal.

Max Power1

SerialComplaint wrote: »

If you mean the grass verge on the path, then no - you can't. Parking on any part of the path is illegal.

You know well what I meant.

I was differentiating between the part of the road directly in front of the driveway (access) and the part not.

Sleveile

Tough and HA HA.

What part of "no parking" was the driver having trouble with? Do lots of driving,parking more driving and loads of traffic myself. What do they expect if the block some ones a gate way, a works entrance etc, cop on please. Between this and idiots who need 2 spaces to park and the others who seem to think that they can park their cars, not commercial vehicles in loading bays I have no symphaty for this person.

Go to specsavers or learn how to read.

TouchingVirus

Sleveile wrote: »

What part of "no parking" was the driver having trouble with?

What part of "criminal damage" were the perpetrators having trouble with?

Forest Master

TouchingVirus wrote: »

What part of "criminal damage" were the perpetrators having trouble with?

Would his car have been damaged if he'd parked legally?

TouchingVirus

Oh, so that makes it OK then. Good to know

hmmm

Even if the person parking was inconsiderate of others, we shouldn't condone what was done to his car. If we do condone this, it encourages every little jumped up me feiner who thinks he owns the street to damage cars that are parked where he doesn't like it.

SerialComplaint

Max Power1 wrote: »

You know well what I meant.

I was differentiating between the part of the road directly in front of the driveway (access) and the part not.

And there was me thinking that when you said 'on the verge', you might have meant 'on the verge'. Silly old me.

-Corkie-

The long and the short is he shouldnt have parked there but they should not have wrecked the persons car. Why couldnt they have left a note saying dont park here or even do what they done to the op`s car or why cant they put up proper no parking signs not the stencil crap.

Forest Master

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Oh, so that makes it OK then. Good to know

No, it doesn't make it okay - I never said that. My point is that it wasn't unprovoked.

TouchingVirus

Forest Master wrote: »

No, it doesn't make it okay - I never said that. My point is that it wasn't unprovoked.

Next time someone remarks on something about me I'm going to smash their head in, leave them with hospital bills out their ears. Hey, it's not ok but they provoked me :rolleyes:

This was not a proportional response for the crime, and it's bullshít there are people out there thinking "no sympathy" and the driver got what they deserved. It's a cop out and the occupants of the premises, who I think it's safe to assume did this, need to get a grip. The driver needs a bit of a reality check too, but we all make mistakes. There's no place for this vigilantesque crap.

hamchops

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Next time someone remarks on something about me I'm going to smash their head in, leave them with hospital bills out their ears. Hey, it's not ok but they provoked me :rolleyes:

This was not a proportional response for the crime, and it's bullshít there are people out there thinking "no sympathy" and the driver got what they deserved. It's a cop out and the occupants of the premises, who I think it's safe to assume did this, need to get a grip. The driver needs a bit of a reality check too, but we all make mistakes. There's no place for this vigilantesque crap.

rabble rabble

TouchingVirus

hamchops wrote: »

rabble rabble

What a thoughtful and enlightening post, do contribute more as I'm eager to hear all you have to say :rolleyes:

bladebrew

there may be more to this than we know, and it does seem a fairly pointless way to get someone to move their car, oil on the windscreen:), i would have just left the car there, how the hell was he going to drive off when the windscreen was covered in oil and sawdust,

Anan1

hamchops wrote: »

rabble rabble

I've already asked you before to stop posting rubbish. Banned for three days.

Max Power1

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And there was me thinking that when you said 'on the verge', you might have meant 'on the verge'. Silly old me.

:rolleyes:
On the verge and not on the access point. I've already clarified.

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Next time someone remarks on something about me I'm going to smash their head in, leave them with hospital bills out their ears. Hey, it's not ok but they provoked me :rolleyes:

This was not a proportional response for the crime, and it's bullshít there are people out there thinking "no sympathy" and the driver got what they deserved. It's a cop out and the occupants of the premises, who I think it's safe to assume did this, need to get a grip. The driver needs a bit of a reality check too, but we all make mistakes. There's no place for this vigilantesque crap.

If the guy hadnt parked illegally and blocked access there would not be an issue in the first place. His actions provoked the response.

Anan1

Max Power1 wrote: »

If the guy hadnt parked illegally and blocked access there would not be an issue in the first place. His actions provoked the response.

I think you might be confusing provocation with justification.

Max Power1

Anan1 wrote: »

I think you might be confusing provocation with justification.

Not really.

The response to the guy's car was provoked by his decision to park illegally and block access. That is fact and not open for discussion. Action A - directly caused - Action B, where A is the illegal parking and B is the damage done in retaliation.

The discussion point is whether the actions in response were justified or not. IMO they were, but as I said, that is the discussion topic

Anan1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Not really.

The response to the guy's car was provoked by his decision to park illegally and block access. That is fact and not open for discussion. Action A - directly caused - Action B, where A is the illegal parking and B is the damage done in retaliation.

Fact and not open for discussion? It's not fact, it's just a guess that a lot of you have assumed to be fact.

keithclancy

Sleveile wrote: »

Tough and HA HA.

What part of "no parking" was the driver having trouble with? Do lots of driving,parking more driving and loads of traffic myself. What do they expect if the block some ones a gate way, a works entrance etc, cop on please. Between this and idiots who need 2 spaces to park and the others who seem to think that they can park their cars, not commercial vehicles in loading bays I have no symphaty for this person.

Go to specsavers or learn how to read.

Next time you make a mistake on the road Techno Terry will jump on your roof and take a sh*t for your evilness.

Marlow

spockety wrote: »

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Looking at the pictures in the original post, there is NOTHING there except some dodgy stencilled yellow paint on a metal garage door to say no parking.

There is a gate. That should be enough, if the person parking has common sense. It's just getting less and less applied here, I'm afraid.

/M

SerialComplaint

Max Power1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
On the verge and not on the access point. I've already clarified.

But you actually meant 'by the verge' - not 'on the verge' (i.e. on the path) - right?

CiniO

Can anyone look at this from the other side?
Let's say that's your gate. You use it for your business and private.
It's clearly signed - NO PARKING.
But even this there's lot's of cars parking and blocking your gate, which makes you unable to make your business or even drive out of your property.

In normal country of law you would call the guards, and they would tow a car away.
But obviosuly not in Ireland. OP said that guards left some not on the car. I just assume it was a note about illegal parking, and probably ticket or something.
Anyway it didn't help the gate owner at all.
I'm not suprices he get's pissed off, and does that kind of things to cars obstructing his entrance.

PS. What I described is just one of the possible ways it could be. We don't really know the truth.

Max Power1

SerialComplaint wrote: »

But you actually meant 'by the verge' - not 'on the verge' (i.e. on the path) - right?

Is this what you are reduced to? Pedanticism?

My point was clear.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

Can anyone look at this from the other side?
Let's say that's your gate. You use it for your business and private.
It's clearly signed - NO PARKING.
But even this there's lot's of cars parking and blocking your gate, which makes you unable to make your business or even drive out of your property.

In normal country of law you would call the guards, and they would tow a car away.
But obviosuly not in Ireland. OP said that guards left some not on the car. I just assume it was a note about illegal parking, and probably ticket or something.
Anyway it didn't help the gate owner at all.
I'm not suprices he get's pissed off, and does that kind of things to cars obstructing his entrance.

PS. What I described is just one of the possible ways it could be. We don't really know the truth.

Im not sure if the guard who came across the car would have had any power to have the car towed tbh. Perhaps if the owner had called them and said the car was blocking their entrance (were just assuming of course that they didnt) then they might have been able to.

Either way, you can justify it any way you like, there is no excuse for what they did. Two wrongs do not make a right, and in this case the reaction made the reactor a far worse offender than the prat who parked in front of their gate.

luap_42

TouchingVirus wrote: »

You've never pulled out onto a yellow box in traffic only to get caught and have to stop on it? Do you expect when the lights go green at the junction the other driver is fully entitled to ram your car off the box? Come on..

An acquaintance of mine was driving a car with a major repair job looming which he didn't want to do. He watched and waited, and one morning he got his chance. At a junction with traffic lights, where a smartass coming in the opposite direction screeched off from the lights and attempted to turn right across in front of him. My acquaintance was ready and had his foot on the floor instantly, dropped the clutch and smashed into yer man's car. The other guy was legally wrong had to cover both cars with his insurance. As I said, an acquaintance, just as big a smartass as the other guy in my opinion.

This was when I was working in London, where the rules are a bit different (and the smartass drivers more plentiful), and there is very little sympathy for someone "bending" the law. On the other hand my ex-mate said he knew it would be virtually impossible for anyone to prove that he did it deliberately.

Another ex-mate in the same company had the front of his car removed by a tipper truck who had used a left turn only filter lane to undertake and jump the main traffic queue. The front of my mate's car was jutting out into the space after the left turn-only lane ended. His insurance refused to go after the tipper truck driver, he took it to court and lost.

Go figure.

luap_42

Max Power1 wrote: »

The response to the guy's car was provoked by his decision to park illegally and block access. That is fact and not open for discussion. Action A - directly caused - Action B, where A is the illegal parking and B is the damage done in retaliation.

Your logic is incorrect (ref. Data/Spock):

Car owner
A: Choice: park legally(1) OR park illegally and block access(2).
B: Decision (2), park illegally and block access

Car Vandal
C: Choice: vandalise car(3) OR leave car alone(4)
Decision: (3), vandalise car

Now if you ASSUME that it was the property/access owner who did the damage (reasonable assumption given the NO PARKING message scrawled on the car), then the second bit goes like this:

Car Vandal - Property/Access Owner
C: Choice: vandalise car to send a message(3) OR leave car alone(4) OR take legal action(s) available(5)
Decision: (3), vandalise car to send a message

Action A is really three things: choice, make a decision, implement it, and do not directly lead to Action B (which is also three things with various possible outcomes). Every person has a choice, then makes a decision, then implements that.

Personally I think the legal route is the way to go, and if not successful, then apply to local authority to install physical moveable lockable parking resrictions (chains/bollards/posts).

Patrick85

I could be wrong, I'm sure my dad's agsi friends on here will correct me if so,

but, planning permission only permits one roadside entrance to any site unless previously stated in planning application judging by the state of the slip shot construction of the entrance this was probably not the case.

if this was not a legally approved entrance then the owner in the car was not in the wrong at all.... let me explain before the retaliation cus i'm not voicing an opinion on it just posting my thoughts on it.

the law states that you cannot restrict access to someones property this pertains to legal access (before people say illegal access should be included would you avoid parking in front of a hole in a fence were some plonk has gone underage drinking or made himself a shortcut home?)

the reason i say this is my friend recently made a workshop out the back of his garden with access to the road behind his property now he got his planning permission no problem but didnt know he had to denote access to a public road so when the enevitable happened (in that area) that a car was dumped there following a joy ride the owner decided not to pick up the car and the gardaí said they could not have it towed as it was not a legal access point to the property and the car was not reported stolen so... the car remained there and my mates new workshop his Primary income remained unusable for a month and a half until the owners insurance company finally removed it for examination for the payout.... even with this happening my friend did not once consider vandalism he simply followed the correct recourse and added a loss of income suit onto the owners insurance, harsh but when you have a 3month old baby and a wife with post natal and no income you need that money which he got thank god.

SV

Max Power1 wrote: »

+1

If this was outside my driveway blocking my access I would have done the same

bet you wouldn't.

Mr. Presentable

luap_42 wrote: »

Personally I think the legal route is the way to go, and if not successful, then apply to local authority to install physical moveable lockable parking resrictions (chains/bollards/posts).

Unfortunately the legal route is way too slow, and the LA will not obstruct the street with bollards/chains.