An Enormous Motoring Faux Pas

[knock out johnny]

There is nowhere, anywhere, in the British constitution or laws, I'm pretty sure, that says it's against the law to touch someone else's car when it's left in a public place, except of course if it is without due care to avoid damage. There are no rights to it at all. You are talking about property rights where in this case none exist.

However, there is common decency to consider other people's feelings, and I failed that one, I honestly didn't realise how passionately people feel about their cars. So I will amend my ways. However it's got nothing to do with rights.

Trespass to chattels - it's a common law tort

Truly mind-boggling that you think you can use or interact with another's property without their consent just because it is in a public space

Keep fecking with other people's stuff and get back to me on how that works out for you

[Bruce Banner]

Why do we want our cars to look so special, immaculate, clean and different......is it because others can see it or because we can see it?

Some do, some don't, shouldn't we just respect other people's wishes?

It would be a pretty boring world if everyone was the same.

[workingpoor]

Why do we want our cars to look so special, immaculate, clean and different......is it because others can see it or because we can see it?

It is because you spend time searching for the right car in pristine condition and then look after it taking care where you park it to protect it from those who would see something nice and wish to damage it, spoil it, as well as the entitled careless types.

Some people dont care about their vehicle and it is nice to have an old banger that you can dump where you like etc

But it seems in this country it is almost like you can't have anything nice unless you go out of your way to protect it.

(see the Aston Martin story)

A bit like buying a £2000+ bicycle you cannot just lock it up in a public area, as everything that can be taken is likely to be stripped off it.

[Si1]

Trespass to chattels - it's a common law tort

Truly mind-boggling that you think you can use or interact with another's property without their consent just because it is in a public space

Keep fecking with other people's stuff and get back to me on how that works out for you

But that's interference in such a way as damages or deprives the owner of the item, isn't it? As far as I can intelligently tell, that doesn't cover all eventualities of coming into contact with someone else's property in as public place?

By your logic, this means people leaving flyers or messages under car windscreen wipers is illegal, perhaps even parking tickets, picking up something for someone who dropped it, maybe keys or a phone, or even pushing their hinged wing mirror back if you're unavoidably manoeuvring out of a tight parking space, say?

It's not fecking with anything, it's dealing with shared space.

[Si1]

Some do, some don't, shouldn't we just respect other people's wishes?

It would be a pretty boring world if everyone was the same.

Agree with this

[winkie]

Some do, some don't, shouldn't we just respect other people's wishes?

It would be a pretty boring world if everyone was the same.

True, life would be pretty boring if we were all the same.....we would all want red ferraris or any other *in car of high demand, high price and low availability* of the moment......why would anyone want to covet a car that someone with ego, power, money and special floweriness about them would want.....not a thing most would aspire to.....far more better important productive goals to work for.....each to their own.

[knock out johnny]

But that's interference in such a way as damages or deprives the owner of the item, isn't it? As far as I can intelligently tell, that doesn't cover all eventualities of coming into contact with someone we else's property in as public place?

The remedy is to cease and if there is damage to pay restitution - but the trespass to chattels has been committed

[Si1]

The remedy is to cease and if there is damage to pay restitution - but the trespass to chattels has been committed

You haven't clarified however that it is such an all encompassing law as you imply. In fact I suspect you deliberately avoided doing so, but by all means do now.

[Bruce Banner]

True, life would be pretty boring if we were all the same.....we would all want red ferraris or any other *in car of high demand, high price and low availability* of the moment......why would anyone want to covet a car that someone with ego, power, money and special floweriness about them would want.....not a thing most would aspire to.....far more better important productive goals to work for.....each to their own.

You pursue the productive goals and with that comes wealth. A red Ferrari is a thing of beauty, why not enjoy one if you have the wherewithal. Mind you, if you don't think Ferraris are things of beauty then don't buy one, I won't think any the less of you.

[knock out johnny]

You haven't clarified however that it is such an all encompassing law as you imply. In fact I suspect you deliberately avoided doing so, but by all means do now.

I didn't delibrately omit anythig, but I'm not going to do a law essay for you - this strand of argument arose in response to this nonsense:

There is nowhere, anywhere, in the British constitution or laws, I'm pretty sure, that says it's against the law to touch someone else's car when it's left in a public place, except of course if it is without due care to avoid damage. There are no rights to it at all. You are talking about property rights where in this case none exist.

just a lazy read on wiki should give you an understanding

Trespass to chattels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trespass to chattels is a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally (or, in Australia, negligently) interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel (movable personal property). The interference can be any physical contact with the chattel in a quantifiable way, or any dispossession of the chattel (whether by taking it, destroying it, or barring the owner's access to it). As opposed to the greater wrong of conversion, trespass to chattels is argued to be actionable per se.

The origin of the concept comes from the original writ of trespass de bonis asportatis. As in most other forms of trespass, remedy can only be obtained once it is proven that there was direct interference regardless of damage being done, and the infringing party has failed to disprove either negligence or intent.

In some common-law countries such as the United States and Canada, a remedy for trespass to chattels can only be obtained if the direct interference was sufficiently substantial to amount to dispossession, or alternatively where there had been an injury proximately related to the chattel. (See Restatement (Second) of Torts, 1965.)

I have no doubt you will complain that it does not specifically mention the law in England and Wales, either by statute or case. If you do, I leave you to your own devices

Do your own research to clarify your position - alternatively you could just respect other peoples' property

[Si1]

- alternatively you could just respect other peoples' property

I thought I did, I just didn't realise the attachment people have to their cars.

Although I do stand corrected that there is indeed a general law saying you can't just come into contact with anything that's someone else's private property, but as I said it seems quite limited, and the wiki page (which I lazily read before you posted it, it is indeed the obvious place to start) seems to support this.

[sPinwheel]

I was right with you up to the milk bit. I don't even drink the stuff, but I'd consider it fair game.

If you didn't buy it it's not yours to take. The end.

[Si1]

If you didn't buy it it's not yours to take. The end.

I'd say stealing milk is worse than resting a shopping trolley carefully against someone else's bumper, but then again what do I know

[workingpoor]

I'd say stealing milk is worse than resting a shopping trolley carefully against someone else's bumper, but then again what do I know

The milk is worth about 38p a pint,

the 2 pack metallic paint and Lacquer would require the whole panel to be blown in to blend in the repair, about £300-350.

I suppose offering to buy a paintpen touch up stick might go some way towards placating the car owner lol

[Si1]

The milk is worth about 38p a pint,

the 2 pack metallic paint and Lacquer would require the whole panel to be blown in to blend in the repair, about £300-350.

Straw man

I

DIDN'T

SCRATCH

ANYTHING

And besides, as I stated matter of factly, assuming I had been careless, which I wasnt, a small scratch only needs polishing out. This was what was stated to me by a body shop repair guy, an independent. And what I've done on my own car on occasion.

I won't be doing this again out of respect for people feelings, not their logic.

[workingpoor]

But does someone "want" a scratch "polished out" on their bodywork?

It means reducing the paint depth further in the surrounding area.

[Si1]

But does someone "want" a scratch "polished out" on their bodywork?

It means reducing the paint depth further in the surrounding area.

Well no, but it's accepted by car lease firms who have a pretty big interest in that, so it's a relative sentiment

BUT SINCE I DIDN'T ACTUALLY CAUSE A SCRATCH THEN IT'S HARDLY AN ISSUE

[knock out johnny]

I thought I did, I just didn't realise the attachment people have to their cars.

Although I do stand corrected that there is indeed a general law saying you can't just come into contact with anything that's someone else's private property, but as I said it seems quite limited, and the wiki page (which I lazily read before you posted it, it is indeed the obvious place to start) seems to support this.

Please explain this limitation you keep seeing

[Si1]

Please explain this limitation you keep seeing

One who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of the chattel if, but only if,

(a) he dispossesses the other of the chattel, or

( the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value, or

© the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or

(d) bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest.

That's from the wiki page. But, genuinely, I'm clearly not of a legal background, but I am aware of what is day to day considered illegal, and whilst people do find the example of me resting my trolley against their bumper objectionable (to which I hold my hands up and accept my insensitivity), it's totally out of my experience to suggest that the law would ever take an interest unless I had caused damage or at least intended to cause damage.

Genuinely, I appreciate your view, this is instructive.

[workingpoor]

( the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value,

^^^^this

[Si1]

( the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value,

^^^^this

Err

[workingpoor]

Err

A trolley scratching a car's paintwork has

resulted in

"( the chattel being impaired as to its condition, quality, or value"

(i know you didn't scratch anything)

This is the root of the ire & anger that will be professed as the car owner will believe his asset has been devalued by someones random careless action.

A resprayed car will always be worth less than if it has it's original factory paint job intact.

[Si1]

A trolley scratching a car's paintwork has

resulted in

"( the chattel being impaired as to its condition, quality, or value"

(i know you didn't scratch anything)

This is the root of the ire & anger that will be professed as the car owner will believe his asset has been devalued by someones random careless action.

I didn't scratch the fecking paintwork

[workingpoor]

I didn't scratch the fecking paintwork

i said you didn't!

i'm just saying that IF it did!

[Si1]

i said you didn't!

i'm just saying that IF it did!

Well yes if it did then I would indeed break possibly several laws. I'm getting a bit paranoid now

Seriously I won't be doing this again, irrespective of the law.

I really don't think I'm going to damage any cars bumpers by gently resting a shopping trolley against them. But I do damage my relationships with my fellow men. And that's worth avoiding.