Friend Drove Car Without Permission

[IanSuth]

Yes - but research a little more and you will find the exemption for private roads that I'm talking about. If you see a bit of apparently public parking that generates income - the very common signs - these are NOT public. Ask a Police Officer. They will tell you the sites local to you where they cannot carry out enforcement. It is NOT down to allowing the public access. Income generation would be impossible if every person who got the sticky ticket could claim it was a public car park. That is why those signs are there. No sign, public. Signs - private. The Police get complaints they do not take action on some car parks. This is their answer.

That is the shops trying to get out of liability BUT if they are open to the public at all they are public road, right of access is not right of free access. We checked precisely this when trying to work out if we could hold a bike show in a car park with permission of the land owner at a time it was not normally open

change of law (interpretation) years ago

 

[Paul Norman]

There are still a few unanswered questions here. For example, who called the police? And what did they say to get police to respond? Police don't usually just show up when called, that quickly, unless the accusation is fairly serious.

Of course, the reality is that if you now drive like a saint for a year, and are polite to the police when they pull you over, you will be fine.

And your mate - don't let him in your car. He sounds like an utter prat.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

He didn't give me it for that, he gave me it for the 'trolley' stunts and how can i not be in control of my car when it wasn't even on. He didnt mention a thing about my friend driving my car without permission. Also when I was using the car to play music it wasnt on so putting it in gear wouldnt of made a difference

A Trolley isn't a motor vehicle.

Section 59 (1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 establishes that where a police constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which contravenes section 3 or section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition ..

Have you had it in writing yet?

My guess is that you won't......

 

[eteb3]

@OP I'm most interested in what you told the police.

The question is how the car was being used. If the car had music blaring, it's being used as a beat box and depending on his taste in music, Plod might reasonably believe that it's "likely to cause annoyance" - PRA 59(1)(b). But note that it must be being used now in a manner likely to cause annoyance. Not is likely to be used in such a manner.

If the uninsured twoc'd the car and drove it, then it looks to me like the car was being used in a manner that contravenes s. 34 RTA - "driving without lawful authority" on "land not forming part of a road", and so Plod reasonably believes the car is being used in a manner etc engaging PRA 59(1)(a).

Tbh, if I was using the car park and could see numpties not in control of their vehicles, I'd be annoyed at least, and possibly alarmed, - so the "learn and grow up" advice seems well placed to me.

Section 59 (1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 establishes that where a police constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which contravenes section 3 or section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition

You missed a bit:

... of off-road driving)
(2)A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

If police turn up and it all looks a bit chaotic and they reasonably think they missed the main event but it wasn't pretty, looks like they can issue the warning.

I'm with @Lucan Unlordly on waiting for the paperwork though: that will give the copper's reasons, which you could in theory challenge. That would either be by (1) persuading his super that the PC could and should have applied his discretion in a different way (even though he had reasonable grounds to issue the warning), or (2) by persuading the super or a court that no police officer could have reasonably believed what the PC wrote on the docket. Pretty tough, given the latitude PRA gives them - classic Blair/Blunkett legislation, that, and things don't look like they're improving.

But if he wrote "seen on CCTV doing trolley stunts near car" I reckon it's on the border of irrationality (at least) to go from there to believing that the car was being used etc...