Car damaged in car park and CCTV out of action

Steppin Out · 11-11-2014 11:23am #1

Last Friday night I left my car in the <snip> car park over night to go to Dublin. I left it right beside one of the ticket vending machines in a central area of the cark park. I chose this car park, as I had seen that there were cameras there before.

When I came back, it was dented and also had a deep scratch in a separate area quite high up. This scratch looked deliberate. I saw the cameras, and thought 'great, it will be good to find out who's done this'. Then, the man on duty was unsympathetic and told me that those cameras have been out of action for the last 3 months. As I expected, he said that the cars are parked at owners risk, and when I asked him if he'd any manager to report to, he just kept saying "all can be found online". He took my details when I told him I was going to write a complaint.

I am going to write a forceful complaint non-the-less, telling them I'm I'll get my solicitor involved, as I think it is unfair of them to give a false impression of security by having the faulty cameras installed. Just wondering is there any other way I can tackle this problem in order to be compensated. If it's the case that their CCTV is down, anyone could go by and drive a truck through the vending machines to steal the money!

cml387 · 11-11-2014 11:39am

You're unlikely to get anywhere.
You cannot prove that damage to your car was caused by an agent of <snip> which could be grounds for compensation.
The security cameras out of action are a problem for <snip> if the machine was robbed, but doesn't really help you.
It's very annoying OP but I doubt there's much you can do.

Victor · 11-11-2014 2:23pm

Report damage to Garda. Ask for pulse number. Write to car park operator asking them to preserve the video for the relevant date and time. Talk to solicitor.

Steppin Out wrote: »

he said that the cars are parked at owners risk

This isn't absolute, discuss with you solicitor.

Potentially, ask them for a good will gesture or you will be going to the media.

Is the car park owned by someone other than the operator?

Steppin Out · 11-11-2014 4:15pm

Victor wrote: »

Report damage to Garda. Ask for pulse number. Write to car park operator asking them to preserve the video for the relevant date and time. Talk to solicitor.

This isn't absolute, discuss with you solicitor.

Potentially, ask them for a good will gesture or you will be going to the media.

Is the car park owned by someone other than the operator?

So you're saying I should pretend not to know that the CCTV isn't already out of order??

Yes I've noted the damage with a near by Garda station so that it would be on record. I've also taken photos of the car so that it can be seen with the damage in the car park.

My dad said that going to our lawyer isn't worth the cost. I might consider getting the lawyer involved depending on how they respond

Hilly Bill · 11-11-2014 4:59pm

Most if not all car parks have a disclaimer that all cars are parked at owners risk and that they wont be held liable for any loss or damage.
Take it up with your insurance company and let them deal with it.

Hilly Bill · 11-11-2014 5:04pm

Victor wrote: »

Report damage to Garda. Ask for pulse number. Write to car park operator asking them to preserve the video for the relevant date and time. Talk to solicitor.

This isn't absolute, discuss with you solicitor.

Potentially, ask them for a good will gesture or you will be going to the media.

Is the car park owned by someone other than the operator?

Thats an absurd suggestion, its sounds too much like blackmail. "If you dont pay up im going to the media". The media wont sort your car out or any other problems you have so i cant see the reason to threaten someone with it just because you dont get your own way.

sconhome · 11-11-2014 5:05pm

Steppin Out wrote: »

So you're saying I should pretend not to know that the CCTV isn't already out of order??

Yes I've noted the damage with a near by Garda station so that it would be on record. I've also taken photos of the car so that it can be seen with the damage in the car park.

My dad said that going to our lawyer isn't worth the cost. I might consider getting the lawyer involved depending on how they respond

Sorry to hear of your hassle OP.

Have you photos of the car in the car park before the damage was caused? I don't think there is an offence in having a faulty security camera so you might not get far with your complaint or upholding the claim that the damage was caused in the carpark unless you have proof of the 'before' situation.

wexie · 11-11-2014 5:10pm

Victor wrote: »

Potentially, ask them for a good will gesture or you will be going to the media.

I might be wrong but in my experience threats are really never a good way to appeal to goodwill.

Victor · 11-11-2014 5:12pm

We don't know that the CCTV doesn't work for certain.

AKW wrote: »

I don't think there is an offence in having a faulty security camera

The OP could have parked on the street. However, they paid the car park operator to provide more secure parking. It would seem the car park operator failed to provide an important part of that.

Hilly Bill · 11-11-2014 5:14pm

Victor wrote: »

We don't know that the CCTV doesn't work for certain.

The OP could have parked on the street. However, they paid the car park operator to provide more secure parking. It would seem the car park operator failed to provide an important part of that.

No they dont, they pay to park the car. Its the owners decision as to how secure it is. The OP didnt say if they could have parked on the street instead.

wexie · 11-11-2014 5:15pm

Victor wrote: »

We don't know that the CCTV doesn't work for certain.

That's a good point, also, which part of it didn't work? All of it? Just that one camera? In which case you may get information from other camera's?

I wouldn't necessarily rely on the weekend operator being quite so up to date with the CCTV system?

Steppin Out · 11-11-2014 5:39pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The OP didnt say if they could have parked on the street instead.

Well that goes without saying. Of cource I could have parked on the street. Part of the reason I decided to park in <snip> was because of the illusion of saftey.

cdebru · 11-11-2014 6:07pm

Steppin Out wrote: »

Well that goes without saying. Of cource I could have parked on the street. Part of the reason I decided to park in <snip> was because of the illusion of saftey.

Always surprises me how often these CCTV cameras are out of action when people have any kind of incident in these places. Maybe its a first response as they Dont want to get involved or maybe they just buy crappy cameras.

challengemaster · 11-11-2014 6:09pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Most if not all car parks have a disclaimer that all cars are parked at owners risk and that they wont be held liable for any loss or damage.

AFAIK - This "disclaimer" is not legally binding and has no legal grounding. This point has been made many times before on boards.

A bit of searching should find it - But they can be held liable. The sign is nothing more than a deterrent to stop people claiming.

Hilly Bill · 11-11-2014 6:26pm

Steppin Out wrote: »

Well that goes without saying. Of cource I could have parked on the street. Part of the reason I decided to park in <snip> was because of the illusion of saftey.

We dont really know until you tell us now do we .

Your issue is with those that did the damage not <snip> . Take it up with the insurance and the guards.

Hilly Bill · 11-11-2014 6:31pm

challengemaster wrote: »

AFAIK - This "disclaimer" is not legally binding and has no legal grounding. This point has been made many times before on boards.

A bit of searching should find it - But they can be held liable. The sign is nothing more than a deterrent to stop people claiming.

How can they be held liable? If that was the case then parking charges would be through the roof as everyone would be claiming for every single scratch or dent.

challengemaster · 11-11-2014 6:53pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

How can they be held liable? If that was the case then parking charges would be through the roof as everyone would be claiming for every single scratch or dent.

Again, you'd have to search for the actual posts where it's been discussed previously. I've no legal background to explain it from. My understanding of it is that: If a company offers a service (parking) and charges for it, a sign cannot absolve them of their legal responsibilities of providing that service. In this case, to ensure no damage occurs whilst the car is parked there.

Like I said - the sign is a deterrent. Obviously a good one.

Chris_5339762 · 11-11-2014 7:19pm

I thought this "parked at owners risk" thing involved a caveat that basically means "excepting gross negligence". I would consider security cameras broken for three months to be gross negligence.

wexie · 11-11-2014 7:31pm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I thought this "parked at owners risk" thing involved a caveat that basically means "excepting gross negligence". I would consider security cameras broken for three months to be gross negligence.

But the camera's working or not working wouldn't have stopped the OP's car from getting damaged though?

Mikros · 11-11-2014 8:10pm

challengemaster wrote: »

AFAIK - This "disclaimer" is not legally binding and has no legal grounding. This point has been made many times before on boards.

A bit of searching should find it - But they can be held liable. The sign is nothing more than a deterrent to stop people claiming.

You would be wasting your time. To be held liable you would have to prove they were negligent in some way. They cannot be held responsible for criminal damage committed by a 3rd party. The fact the CCTV was or was not working in no way would have changed what happened. Sure it makes it difficult to track down that 3rd party, but the damage has already been done.

Steppin Out · 11-11-2014 9:44pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats an absurd suggestion, its sounds too much like blackmail.

But he's a moderator so it's assumed he has more sense than you!

Hilly Bill · 11-11-2014 10:08pm

Steppin Out wrote: »

But he's a moderator so it's assumed he has more sense than you!

The same way you assumed that your car would be safe? Dont let the moderator tag fool you

.
Ok, go ahead and try and blackmail the car park crowd and then come back and let us know the result if you think its a sensible idea

.
Or you could just do the sensible thing like I a mere poster suggested and let the guards deal with it and your insurance crowd if you want to get it repaired. If you still at a loss the you could also try and bring a negligence case against the car park crowd but like another mere poster said , you will have to prove the damaged was not there prior to you parking there and the damage was actually done at the time the car was parked on their property.
Every time i park my car in any car park its at a risk im willing to take but then again if i was a moderator i would have more sense .

wexie · 11-11-2014 10:09pm

Steppin Out wrote: »

But he's a moderator so it's assumed he has more sense than you!

....You ain't from around here are ya boy?

my3cents · 11-11-2014 10:09pm

I used to run a charity event where we had to put up non disclaimer notices for car parking. The reason we did it was because it was one of the stipulations of the insurance we had. We were insured for claims for car damage but still had to put up the disclaimer notices.

wexie · 11-11-2014 10:11pm

my3cents wrote: »

I used to run a charity event where we had to put up non disclaimer notices for car parking. The reason we did it was because it was one of the stipulations of the insurance we had. We were insured for claims for car damage but still had to put up the disclaimer notices.

I don't suppose you asked the insurer to clarify why that was did you?
Just to minimize hassle/claims?

my3cents · 11-11-2014 10:21pm

wexie wrote: »

I don't suppose you asked the insurer to clarify why that was did you?
Just to minimize hassle/claims?

It was a group insurance scheme for a large number of events so I didn't have any way to question the reasoning but assumed it was to reduce claims in fact afaik over many years no claim was ever made for any reason.

wexie · 11-11-2014 10:29pm

my3cents wrote: »

It was a group insurance scheme for a large number of events so I didn't have any way to question the reasoning but assumed it was to reduce claims in fact afaik over many years no claim was ever made for any reason.

Mad that insurers are allowed to operate like that. ie. discouraging people from making (perhaps legitimate) claims.

Steppin Out · 13-11-2014 8:15pm

Having contacted NCPS, here is the latest:

Them: We do not look after the CCTV for this site. You will need to contact the property management to request this footage

Me: Well I assume that the property management is part of NCPS(since it's your property), so could you please give me a contact number for them.

Them: It is not our property. The PM company get NCPS to patrol the site. You will need to contact them directly.

Me: Could you please give me a contact number for them??

Them(a day later): Please be advised we cannot give out the contact number of our client as it is governed by the data protection Act.

Hilly Bill · 14-11-2014 5:46pm

Just contact the guards, they will request the cctv footage. You will not get to see the cctv from the operators themselves.

cdebru · 14-11-2014 7:04pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Just contact the guards, they will request the cctv footage. You will not get to see the cctv from the operators themselves.

My bet would be they will say that is a civil matter between you and the car park owner/operator, private property etc etc .

gizmo555 · 14-11-2014 7:09pm

Steppin Out wrote: »

Them(a day later): Please be advised we cannot give out the contact number of our client as it is governed by the data protection Act.

If NCPS's client is a company, they're talking through their hoop. Companies have no rights under the Data Protection Acts.

Hilly Bill · 15-11-2014 12:54pm

cdebru wrote: »

My bet would be they will say that is a civil matter between you and the car park owner/operator, private property etc etc .

Not if you report criminal damage to your car surely?

elastico · 16-11-2014 11:07pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Not if you report criminal damage to your car surely?

How is it criminal damage?

It's accidental damage, so presumably a civil matter.

Hilly Bill · 17-11-2014 6:01pm

The Op thinks the damage was done on purpose .

Vic_08 · 18-11-2014 12:27am

elastico wrote: »

How is it criminal damage?

It's accidental damage, so presumably a civil matter.

Is it not illegal now to damage another vehicle or property and leave the scene without providing your details?

biketard · 18-11-2014 1:52am

Do they have a sign up in the car park saying that they use CCTV? Cos if they do, isn't that a lie if it hasn't worked for 3 months?

GM228 · 18-11-2014 9:28pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

If NCPS's client is a company, they're talking through their hoop. Companies have no rights under the Data Protection Acts.

AFAIK as I know even if the client is a company then they are protected in this case, a company in general may not have any rights BUT they are a customer of NCPS and a customers details can not be released under the DP Act whoever they are or whatever they are.

On the legal side you must be able to prove as already stated that the car was damaged at the car park (i.e before and after images which can prove time, date and location).

A sign stating whatever means nothing legally for many reasons, first and foremost a company can not prove you read and agreed to a non-disclaimer unless it is signed, dated and counter-signed!

GM228

Steppin Out · 22-11-2014 11:39pm

Been emailing the NCPS complaints department, and they stopped replying as soon as we got to the core of the matter. I then said I'd better ring them, and the lady on the phone said that I'd better go to the complaints department for my issue. She then said they only deal via emails. I told her that I'd already been emailing and asked her who was in charge of the complaints department. She said she didn't know because it was a completely different section.

I then called Irish rail for footage, and they told me that they don't release it to the public. Went to the guards again for them to get the footage instead. A few days later, the guards rang to tell me that the cameras were down that day.

I think I'll send a threatening email soon, but I'd just like to be sure who in the company I's like to see it.

Car damaged in car park and CCTV out of action

Comments