Advice Sought: Uninsured car in apartment development

condor69

Hi all,
Just looking for some advice. My uninsured car is parked up (not moved in a few months) in my private apartment development with residents permit in windscreen. I got a letter from the managing agent today stating that they had sought professional advice and parking of uninsured cars may negate any possible insurance claims (against who?). If I dont contact them within 7 days "we will have no alternative than to instruct our solictors to progress this matter."

I dont see what the problem is, I am entitled to park in a communal space, finding a space is never a problem for others. I paid enough for the apartment in the first place now I can't park my car there until I can afford insurance.

Would like to hear your thoughts on this, are they in the right or is this a scare letter?

Thanks in advance,

C.

MagicSean

I presume they mean if you're car catches fire and damages other vehicles there will be no insurance to pay for them.

RickRoll

OP you are parked in a residential area therefore the car has to be insured, it makes no difference if its driven or not.

Marcusm

Check your lease and the separate lease of your parking space if any. There is no requirement in law at the moment for you to keep insurance on the car and I would be very surprised if your lease imposed an obligation upon you to keep the car insured - I would assume that it would contain covenants not to keep commercial vehicles.

If your lease is silent on the point, inform the managing agent that if they interfere with the car you will take a case against their employer (i.e. the landlord of the space, likely to be the owners management company) for breach of the quiet enjoyment clause of the lease.

If the managing agent fails to arrange adequate insurance for the car park, that is their issue.

ResearchWill

condor69 wrote: »

Hi all,
Just looking for some advice. My uninsured car is parked up (not moved in a few months) in my private apartment development with residents permit in windscreen. I got a letter from the managing agent today stating that they had sought professional advice and parking of uninsured cars may negate any possible insurance claims (against who?). If I dont contact them within 7 days "we will have no alternative than to instruct our solictors to progress this matter."

I dont see what the problem is, I am entitled to park in a communal space, finding a space is never a problem for others. I paid enough for the apartment in the first place now I can't park my car there until I can afford insurance.

Would like to hear your thoughts on this, are they in the right or is this a scare letter?

Thanks in advance,

C.

The problem could be that if for example a fault caused a fire in your car, there is no insurance to compensate the management company if any damage was caused to the building or other cars. While it is more than likely true you are not committing a offence as the property is not a public place or public road, never the less your car could in theory be a danger to others. Another example a couple of joyriders, get into complex get into your car and drive it around car park causing damage to all the other cars, who is going to pay for that damage. I know you will say chances of any thing happening are very slim, but the management company are right to deal with the issue now before that one in a million things happens.

Marcusm

RickRoll wrote: »

OP you are parked in a residential area therefore the car has to be insured, it makes no difference if its driven or not.

Perhaps you might explain the legal background to your statement. It is at odds with the law.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#sec56

ResearchWill

Marcusm wrote: »

Check your lease and the separate lease of your parking space if any. There is no requirement in law at the moment for you to keep insurance on the car and I would be very surprised if your lease imposed an obligation upon you to keep the car insured - I would assume that it would contain covenants not to keep commercial vehicles.

If your lease is silent on the point, inform the managing agent that if they interfere with the car you will take a case against their employer (i.e. the landlord of the space, likely to be the owners management company) for breach of the quiet enjoyment clause of the lease.

If the managing agent fails to arrange adequate insurance for the car park, that is their issue.

The management company may very well have adequate insurance, but there is nothing stopping that insurance company then stepping into the shoes of the management company and suing the owner of the vehicle, as it was their negligence that cause the damage, then OP could be in serious wate, as he had no insurance.

BTW the OP did not say that the management company would interfere with the car, he said they would in 7 days they will instruct their solicitors on the matter. If they succeed against the OP he will then also become liable to their cost. So OP I would make sure you are on very solid ground before you force them down the legal route. BTW you may also be in the right meaning they pay your costs, either way if you are not going to insure or move the car, get proper legal advice.

Marcusm

ResearchWill wrote: »

The problem could be that if for example a fault caused a fire in your car, there is no insurance to compensate the management company if any damage was caused to the building or other cars. While it is more than likely true you are not committing a offence as the property is not a public place or public road, never the less your car could in theory be a danger to others. Another example a couple of joyriders, get into complex get into your car and drive it around car park causing damage to all the other cars, who is going to pay for that damage. I know you will say chances of any thing happening are very slim, but the management company are right to deal with the issue now before that one in a million things happens.

With all due respect, unless the damage is caused by his negligence or recklessness, why would or should he be liable?

Depending on the nature of the parking arrangements, it might be that the joyriders in your example might only have access to the car park as a result of negligence by the management company and/or their agents (e.g. inadequate security provision). In such circumstances, the occupier's liability insurance maintained in respect of the car park should be established in such a manner as to cover such eventualities. Recourse should not be required to individual motor policies.

condor69

Thanks for all the replies so far.
Fair points about the fire & joyriding, unlikely though, the battery is dead at the moment.
I'd be fairly sure there is nothing in the lease about it, as this was never mentioned in the letter. I'm really asking weather this would be covered in a standard block insurance policy and how could a solictor progess with this,

Thanks,

C

Marcusm

ResearchWill wrote: »

The management company may very well have adequate insurance, but there is nothing stopping that insurance company then stepping into the shoes of the management company and suing the owner of the vehicle, as it was their negligence that cause the damage, then OP could be in serious wate, as he had no insurance.

BTW the OP did not say that the management company would interfere with the car, he said they would in 7 days they will instruct their solicitors on the matter. If they succeed against the OP he will then also become liable to their cost. So OP I would make sure you are on very solid ground before you force them down the legal route. BTW you may also be in the right meaning they pay your costs, either way if you are not going to insure or move the car, get proper legal advice.

I think you have two points here:

On the first para, provided the car is adequately maintained and roadworthy, it is hard to conceive of how damage might be caused through the owner's negligence per se. I don't think the joy riding example previously cited is apposite.

On the second point, even if they did take legal advice, unless the lease does require the cars in the car park be insured (and presumably taxed), it is hard to see what action could be taken by the management company unless they have evidence to how that the car is a hazard and thus must be moved. Therefore, it would seem that the managing agent would be incurring expense for the development as a whole rather than the OP.

While I am all for people seeking and obtaining legal advice, it should be possible to discern the applicable provisions of the lease without recourse to legal advice.

ResearchWill

Marcusm wrote: »

With all due respect, unless the damage is caused by his negligence or recklessness, why would or should he be liable?

Depending on the nature of the parking arrangements, it might be that the joyriders in your example might only have access to the car park as a result of negligence by the management company and/or their agents (e.g. inadequate security provision). In such circumstances, the occupier's liability insurance maintained in respect of the car park should be established in such a manner as to cover such eventualities. Recourse should not be required to individual motor policies.

So if I park my insured car next to a house, through no fault of mine, my car explodes, an electrical problem, causing damage to a gable wall of the house I'm parked next to. Then my insurance does not have to pay out.

BTW it may be negligent to leave a car unattended for weeks or months. While it may be true that the management company are negligent in allowing the two joy riders to break in, (but that depends on the car park and how open it is), the OP may again be considered to be negligent in leaving an open invitation to the joyriders, in that the car seems to be abandoned. It would in my opinion be reasonably foreseeable that such things may happen to what is in effect an abondened car.

The OP has 3 options

1 ignore them and if you are right no problem, if you are wrong he has a costs bill.
2 get cheap third party insurance to cover any possible risk
3 move car to property of friend or family who has no problem with it being uninsured.

ResearchWill

Marcusm wrote: »

I think you have two points here:

On the first para, provided the car is adequately maintained and roadworthy, it is hard to conceive of how damage might be caused through the owner's negligence per se. I don't think the joy riding example previously cited is apposite.

On the second point, even if they did take legal advice, unless the lease does require the cars in the car park be insured (and presumably taxed), it is hard to see what action could be taken by the management company unless they have evidence to how that the car is a hazard and thus must be moved. Therefore, it would seem that the managing agent would be incurring expense for the development as a whole rather than the OP.

While I am all for people seeking and obtaining legal advice, it should be possible to discern the applicable provisions of the lease without recourse to legal advice.

Neither you JR I have seen the lease, so we do not know what it says. But I can guess there is a broad term in relation to waste and other such. Many leases do not allow the tennant to for example cause the building to look shabby, they may interpet that not to alliow abondened cars.

I am assuming the OP is a tennant, we do not know anything about the landlords covenents which are part of his property, while the OP may not be in breach of his lease, the lanlord may be in breach of his covenents.

I have only set out why I think the Management Company have done what they have. And while it is all very good for someone to say a but it won't happen, is anyone here going to pay the OP's cost to prove he is in the right.

Marcusm

ResearchWill wrote: »

So if I park my insured car next to a house, through no fault of mine, my car explodes, an electrical problem, causing damage to a gable wall of the house I'm parked next to. Then my insurance does not have to pay out.

BTW it may be negligent to leave a car unattended for weeks or months. While it may be true that the management company are negligent in allowing the two joy riders to break in, (but that depends on the car park and how open it is), the OP may again be considered to be negligent in leaving an open invitation to the joyriders, in that the car seems to be abandoned. It would in my opinion be reasonably foreseeable that such things may happen to what is in effect an abondened car.

The OP has 3 options

1 ignore them and if you are right no problem, if you are wrong he has a costs bill.
2 get cheap third party insurance to cover any possible risk
3 move car to property of friend or family who has no problem with it being uninsured.

Para 1: Genuinely I don't know. I'm not a lawyer although I suspect you are. The circumstances rarely arise as most gable ends would be in public places such that there should be insurance. It's an interesting one however as to the extent to which damage caused in such circumstances is borne by the owner rather than the manufacturer or servicer of the machine - I guess privity of contract to the extent it continues to exist absolves the latter two. Is the OP responsible if not negligent?

I didn't get the impression that the OP was abandoning the car or would not inspect it regularly.

Fundamentally, I take my appraoch predicated in part on the significantly low likelihood of anything actually arising while I assume that the OP is laying up the car through not being able to afford the insuranc (I could be wrong).

I think I would personally take the risk of an insurance company taking recovery action against me in these circumstances. I am incensed by the action of the managing agent if in fact insurnce is not required under the lease. It is an interference with private property rights, job making and expense incurring rather than actual development management.

Marcusm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Neither you JR I have seen the lease, so we do not know what it says. But I can guess there is a broad term in relation to waste and other such. Many leases do not allow the tennant to for example cause the building to look shabby, they may interpet that not to alliow abondened cars.

I am assuming the OP is a tennant, we do not know anything about the landlords covenents which are part of his property, while the OP may not be in breach of his lease, the lanlord may be in breach of his covenents.

I have only set out why I think the Management Company have done what they have. And while it is all very good for someone to say a but it won't happen, is anyone here going to pay the OP's cost to prove he is in the right.

Are we at cross purposes? The landlord I refer to is the freeholder? I believe that the OP owns his apartment and car parking space (presumably by lease and/or licence). I don't rad the OP as having abandoned his car but merely to be parking it there during a period of non use. I would agree that it should not be allowed to make it look shabby or use it to store anything other than a genuine motor vehicle. Parking up a vehicle for months at time is a genuine use of a parking space. I suspect the OP should have obtained a car cover both to avoid the accumulation of dust on the car and these other issues arising.

BY all means he should take advice to limit any exposure but I would expect my landlord/freeholder or their agent to point out to me what breach I am committing. Are they for example equally fastidious in ensuring the other residents do not use their spaces to store roof boxes, child seats, containers of fuel, oil etc. I have apartment spaces in London and Dublin and you would be surprised what I have seen people store in parking spaces without management agent intervention - sets of tyres and a three piece suite included!! The OP is not in this category, neither as nuisance nor danger.

ResearchWill

Marcusm wrote: »

Para 1: Genuinely I don't know. I'm not a lawyer although I suspect you are. The circumstances rarely arise as most gable ends would be in public places such that there should be insurance. It's an interesting one however as to the extent to which damage caused in such circumstances is borne by the owner rather than the manufacturer or servicer of the machine - I guess privity of contract to the extent it continues to exist absolves the latter two. Is the OP responsible if not negligent?

I didn't get the impression that the OP was abandoning the car or would not inspect it regularly.

Fundamentally, I take my appraoch predicated in part on the significantly low likelihood of anything actually arising while I assume that the OP is laying up the car through not being able to afford the insuranc (I could be wrong).

I think I would personally take the risk of an insurance company taking recovery action against me in these circumstances. I am incensed by the action of the managing agent if in fact insurnce is not required under the lease. It is an interference with private property rights, job making and expense incurring rather than actual development management.

I agree the chance of anything actually happening is slim, but that's why we all buy insurance we don't even want a slim risk. I went looking for a standard lease online found one on www.topfloor.ie the interesting section is "The Tenant shall put in place and maintain full and adequate insurance cover in respect of all the Tenant's property on or in the premises, and all persons in the premises with the Tenant's consent, and shall indemnify the Landlord from all claims whatsoever in respect of loss, damage or injury to such property or persons."

As I said without seeing the lease and if necessary the landlord head lease or freehold with covenants, I would not be having the fight with the management company, unless I was 100% right and even then is it worth it.

BTW the OP has not said if he is renting or owner occupier, in either case their is more than likely a clause re insurance, example water damage to lower apartment due to person leaving tap on all weekend while away.

MagicSean

This is all kind of moot really. They have no legal way of knowing if you are insured.

Marcusm

ResearchWill wrote: »

I agree the chance of anything actually happening is slim, but that's why we all buy insurance we don't even want a slim risk. I went looking for a standard lease online found one on www.topfloor.ie the interesting section is "The Tenant shall put in place and maintain full and adequate insurance cover in respect of all the Tenant's property on or in the premises, and all persons in the premises with the Tenant's consent, and shall indemnify the Landlord from all claims whatsoever in respect of loss, damage or injury to such property or persons."

As I said without seeing the lease and if necessary the landlord head lease or freehold with covenants, I would not be having the fight with the management company, unless I was 100% right and even then is it worth it.

BTW the OP has not said if he is renting or owner occupier, in either case their is more than likely a clause re insurance, example water damage to lower apartment due to person leaving tap on all weekend while away.

I'm off to bed now. The OP refers to having paid for the apratment by which I take it to mean a 125 year or 999 year lease. I couldn't find one on the topfloor.ie site, only leases dealing with periodic tenancies. Maybe I looked in the wrong part.

Generally I have seen shorter form leases for the car parks separately and they haven't had insurance clauses. To be honest, I know lots of people with summer cars etc who park them (uninsured for most of the year) in circumstances such as this.

Water egression from one flat into another is something I've suffered from at both ends - I've yet to meet anyone with insurance which covered it. Common parts (i.e. block) insurance generally covers from communal pipes etc. Other water spillage is generally covered by cash in my experience rather than insurance.

bath handle

Most motor insurance policies only cover the vehicle while it is in a public place. That is all that is required by law. That being the case it is highly likely that even vehicles with up to date insurance are not covered while in the casr park.

Peregrinus

Road Traffic Act s. 56(1) says, basically, that a person “shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle” unless it’s insured.

“Use” is defined in s. 3(1) to include “park”. So you may not park an uninsured vehicle in a public place.

“Public place” doesn’t just mean the road; under s. 3 it includes “any place to which the public have access with vehicles, whether as of right or by permission”, and whether for a charge or for free.

A communal car park, used by (say) the residents in an apartment block and their visitors, is usually regarded as a “public place” for these purposes, since this is a large enough group to be “the public”. (“The public” doesn’t have to mean “everyone in the world”). It doesn’t make any difference that someone may have an exclusive licence to use a particular parking space.

So, basically, parking your uninsured car in the communal cark park is an offence under s. 53(1). If your car is uninsured it’s not enough to keep it off the road; you have to not park it in a “public place”.

Now, a separate question is why the landlord or service company would be concerned that condor69 is committing an offence under the RTA, but evidently they are concerned, and their concern relates to the terms of their own insurance. That’s not completely implausible, but obviously we can’t say for sure without seeng the terms of the policy. But the fact that condor69 is committing an offence could certainly be relevant; the landlord’s policy may well contain exclusions covering claims arising out of unlawful activity which the landlord permits on the premises.

Milk & Honey

Peregrinus wrote: »

Road Traffic Act s. 56(1) says, basically, that a person “shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle” unless it’s insured.

“Use” is defined in s. 3(1) to include “park”. So you may not park an uninsured vehicle in a public place.

“Public place” doesn’t just mean the road; under s. 3 it includes “any place to which the public have access with vehicles, whether as of right or by permission”, and whether for a charge or for free.

A communal car park, used by (say) the residents in an apartment block and their visitors, is usually regarded as a “public place” for these purposes, since this is a large enough group to be “the public”. (“The public” doesn’t have to mean “everyone in the world”). It doesn’t make any difference that someone may have an exclusive licence to use a particular parking space.

.

The public means the public at large and not just a section of the public. The public do not have permission to enter the majority of apartment blocks. Only residents, owners of apartments and their invitees can drive into the communal spaces.

MagicSean

Public place does not include private car parks. Most aparent complex car parks are only for residents so would not be open to the public

Peregrinus

I think this must depend on the precise facts. If the car park is, say, enclosed under the building, and you need to use a swipe card or similar to get in, then it's probably not a "public place". But if the car park is an open area around the apartment building, paved and with car spaces marked, and anyone can drive in off the street, and the "private" nature of the park is enforced simply by having signs that say "private parking", and perhaps wheel-clamping now and then, I think there's an argument that that's enough of a "public place" for RTA purposes.

MagicSean

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think this must depend on the precise facts. If the car park is, say, enclosed under the building, and you need to use a swipe card or similar to get in, then it's probably not a "public place". But if the car park is an open area around the apartment building, paved and with car spaces marked, and anyone can drive in off the street, and the "private" nature of the park is enforced simply by having signs that say "private parking", and perhaps wheel-clamping now and then, I think there's an argument that that's enough of a "public place" for RTA purposes.

I'm going by the ops reference to having a permit.

steve9859

Peregrinus wrote: »

Road Traffic Act s. 56(1) says, basically, that a person “shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle” unless it’s insured.

“Use” is defined in s. 3(1) to include “park”. So you may not park an uninsured vehicle in a public place.

“Public place” doesn’t just mean the road; under s. 3 it includes “any place to which the public have access with vehicles, whether as of right or by permission”, and whether for a charge or for free.

A communal car park, used by (say) the residents in an apartment block and their visitors, is usually regarded as a “public place” for these purposes, since this is a large enough group to be “the public”. (“The public” doesn’t have to mean “everyone in the world”). It doesn’t make any difference that someone may have an exclusive licence to use a particular parking space.

So, basically, parking your uninsured car in the communal cark park is an offence under s. 53(1). If your car is uninsured it’s not enough to keep it off the road; you have to not park it in a “public place”.

QUOTE]

Interesting thread this, as an irish apartment owner now living overseas.

I own my parking space (well, am a leaseholder), so though it may be in a communal car park, my little part of that car park is not a "public place". I is my own private space. So surely the act to which you refer does not apply. Any insurance issue is between me and the freeholder (depending on the terms of the lease) - I dont see how the road traffic act is relevant to a private space in an underground car park

Peregrinus

steve9859 wrote: »

I own my parking space (have a lease on it), so though it may be in a communal car park, my little part of that car park is not a "public place". I is my own private space. So surely the act to which you refer does not apply. Any insurance issue is between me and the freeholder (depending on the terms of the lease) - I dont see how the road traffic act is relevant to a private space in an underground car park

That raises the question of what is meant by “place”. You’re suggesting that your individual leased car parking bay is a “place”, and since only you or those you give permission to have the right to park in that bay, it’s not a “public place”.

I don’t think that analysis will appeal to a court, if you consider the purposes and context of the Road Traffic Act. The requirement to insure is there to protect members of the public who may be injured or suffer loss as a result of your use of your car. Could other people be affected by your “use” of the your car when it is parked in your own bay? Yes, I think is the answer; if your car leaks oil or petrol, or catches fire, or whatever, the risk of injury or damage to others does not stop at the white line painted around your bay. So I think there’s a sporting chance that a court would hold that the car park as a whole is the “place” which the Act contemplates, and the issue is not whether the public has access to your bay, but whether they have access to the car park.

Lantus

A gated car park would be private property surely? Not a public place. The OMC would own the common areas by deed which would include the car park and corridors etc. The residents own the OMC so by default they also part own by share the common areas.

If I parked a vehicle on my private driveway and it had no tax, insurance, NCT and let it rust for 50 years there wouldn't be a damm thing anyone could do about it.

The situation is a little more ambiguous in this case because ownship of these areas is as outlined above is by the company which if your an owner you part own. (The company not the space.)

I would be tempted to inform the OMC that the disc is on it's way and then get a cover for the car to obscure the window. Maybe get them to outline the specific lease part that covers non insurance in your designated space. Do you have the lease agreement for the property? If so it will outline what you can and cannot do.

PCPhoto

MagicSean wrote: »

Public place does not include private car parks. Most aparent complex car parks are only for residents so would not be open to the public

just to re-inforce this point ... if it did, the private clampers would have no legal issues and would be free to clamp everyone (without permission of management companies/agent)....so a private car park is a PRIVATE car park and not a public place.

Peregrinus

Lantus wrote: »

A gated car park would be private property surely? Not a public place. The OMC would own the common areas by deed which would include the car park and corridors etc. The residents own the OMC so by default they also part own by share the common areas. . . .

The situation is a little more ambiguous in this case because ownship of these areas is as outlined above is by the company which if your an owner you part own. (The company not the space.)

Whether a place is a “public place” depends not on who owns it, but who has access to it. So a shopping centre car park, for instance, is usually under private ownership, but it’s definitely a public place.

A gated car park probably would not be a public place – provided the gates are used, and do in fact serve to keep the public out. If in practice the car park is open to anyone who cares to use it, you can’t take it out of the “public place” category by putting up a token pair of gates which are rarely or never closed.

barman linen

Peregrinus wrote: »

So a shopping centre car park, for instance, is usually under private ownership, but it’s definitely a public place.

Slightly OT but have always wondered....in a shopping centre car park there are usually directional arrows on the road and sometimes no entry markings between lanes of parked cars in an effort to control the flow. If I spot a car coming out and zip up a lane against the arrow direction to take the space am I breaking the RTA or just annoying the private security men in place ? What would happen if I hit another car ?

jblack

Back on point.

Does the OP have any stipulation that the car must be insured at all times included in the management/letting agreement, and if so do they have the right to require you to produce?

BrianD

Marcusm wrote: »

Perhaps you might explain the legal background to your statement. It is at odds with the law.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#sec56

The problem is that the car park may well be a public space. No different to the street outside.

Marcusm

BrianD wrote: »

The problem is that the car park may well be a public space. No different to the street outside.

I think the price he paid to purchase the space together with the requirement for a permit to be displayed means that members of the public are unlikely to have permission to drive in the car park - they certainly won't have a "right" to be there. Failure to enforce parking restrictions can result in the "public place" provision falling into play but seems less likely to be the case here based on the OPs statements.

Milk & Honey

Marcusm wrote: »

I think the price he paid to purchase the space together with the requirement for a permit to be displayed means that members of the public are unlikely to have permission to drive in the car park - they certainly won't have a "right" to be there. Failure to enforce parking restrictions can result in the "public place" provision falling into play but seems less likely to be the case here based on the OPs statements.

The gate does not have to be kept closed.
[1985] I.L.R.M. 290 Claire Stanbridge v Declan Healy and By Order Messrs Ensign Motor Policies at Lloyds (Notice Party)
Hamilton J
"It does not appear to matter to me whether the gate was left open at all times or not. It is quite clear to me from the evidence that the public at large did not have access to Corduffstown House, its lands or the roadway which led from the gates up to Corduffstown House.

In the Scottish case of Harrison v Hill 1932 SC (J) 13 , the Lord Justice General, Lord Clyde, who was considering whether in the case before him, a road leading from a public highway down to a farmhouse was a road within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1930 had occasion to interpret the definition: ‘That road means any highway or any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ , stated (at 16):

It is plain from the terms of the definition that the class of road intended is wider than the class of public roads to which the public has access by virtue of a positive right belonging to the public and flowing either from the statute or from prescriptive user. A road may therefore be within the definition:

(1) Although it belongs to the class of private roads and,

(2) although all that can be said with regard to its availability to the public is that the public has access to it.

I think that, when the statute speaks of ‘the public’ in this connection, what is meant is the public generally, and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go to the farmhouse or any part of the farm itself; were it otherwise, the definition might just as well have included all private roads as well as all public highways.

The important part of that statement is his reference to his interpretation of the meaning of the words ‘the public’ which he interprets as meaning the public generally and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go to the farmhouse or any part of the farm itself.

It is quite clear from the evidence of Mr Lynch that the public generally do not have any access to the lands of Corduffstown House either as of right or by permission.

I am further satisfied that the meaning to be attributed to the words ‘the public’ in the definition of a ‘public place’ contained in s. 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 , is the public generally and not any particular class. That being so I have no alternative but to hold that the place where the accident occurred was not a public place within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1961 , and that the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in her application for leave to execute against Messrs Ensign Motor Policies at Lloyds in respect of the judgment obtained by her against the defendant.

In reaching this decision I am fortified by the decision of Maguire P, in the cae of Judge v Leonard [1941] Ir Jur Rep 39 , and by the fact that the statement of Lord Clyde referred to herein was considered and adopted in Bugge v Taylor [1941] 1 KB 198 and in Buchanan v Motor Insurer's Bureau [1955] 1 All ER p. 607 ."

Marcusm

Milk & Honey

Thank you very much for providing the report of an Irish case. I previoulsy provided citations of cases on the UK equivalent statute but had not seen any Irish reports.

odds_on

As far as I remember, the lqst time I had car insurance, some 15 years ago, the insurance does not cover accidents on private property. Therefore any driving into a private car park ceases to be insured.

I am probably completely wrong - just my memory of when I used to drive.

Thoie

Just another thing to throw into the mix, but during the floods last autumn, cars parked in a private underground carpark in an apartment block were destroyed. In that case, the owners were claiming off their own car insurance - the block policy didn't come into it. So if something random happened your car while in the underground carpark, there may be no comeback.

I know that last year my car insurance was running out while I was away on holidays. My initial reaction was that, as I wouldn't be driving it, I'd just arrange for the new insurance to start the day I got home, but a number of people pointed out to me that if anything happened during the week I'd be screwed.

Peregrinus

odds_on wrote: »

As far as I remember, the lqst time I had car insurance, some 15 years ago, the insurance does not cover accidents on private property. Therefore any driving into a private car park ceases to be insured.

I am probably completely wrong - just my memory of when I used to drive.

If the policy did provide that, then it would not satisfy the requirements of the Road Traffic Act, and you would have been committing the offence of driving without insurance. Under the RTA, you must have insurance which covers you when driving in a "public place" - and, as we have seen, private property can be a "public place", e.g. a shopping centre car park.

condor69

MagicSean wrote: »

This is all kind of moot really. They have no legal way of knowing if you are insured.

Hi,

OP here, thanks for all the replies, think I am more confused now than when I started.

To save all the hassle, I am going to get the car insured but just to have a little bit of fun, do I legally have to display the insurance disc on the windscreen in a private development? So if MA write again, I can tell them I am insured.

Cheers,

C.

Victor

Marcusm wrote: »

With all due respect, unless the damage is caused by his negligence or recklessness, why would or should he be liable?

Depending on the nature of the parking arrangements, it might be that the joyriders in your example might only have access to the car park as a result of negligence by the management company and/or their agents (e.g. inadequate security provision). In such circumstances, the occupier's liability insurance maintained in respect of the car park should be established in such a manner as to cover such eventualities. Recourse should not be required to individual motor policies.

In the case of joyriding, the MIBI should step in.

steve9859 wrote: »

Interesting thread this, as an irish apartment owner now living overseas.

I own my parking space (well, am a leaseholder), so though it may be in a communal car park, my little part of that car park is not a "public place". I is my own private space. So surely the act to which you refer does not apply. Any insurance issue is between me and the freeholder (depending on the terms of the lease) - I dont see how the road traffic act is relevant to a private space in an underground car park

I imagine that you have at most a white line around (part) of your space. This is insufficient to separate it from the rest of the car park.

barman linen wrote: »

Slightly OT but have always wondered....in a shopping centre car park there are usually directional arrows on the road and sometimes no entry markings between lanes of parked cars in an effort to control the flow. If I spot a car coming out and zip up a lane against the arrow direction to take the space am I breaking the RTA or just annoying the private security men in place ? What would happen if I hit another car ?

You would be down for dangerous driving or similar.