Company Car Parks - Employers Liability

Anonymous

I am no expert on this, but my view would be that if the Employer offers car parking as a part of employment at that location it could be regarded as an extension to their place of work. In which case whatever responsibilities the Employer has to protect its employees in the 'Workplace' would also apply to the car park.

I'm sure it has been determined in Court that car parking, once provided by an employer, is regarded as a 'benefit' that can't be taken away without compensation being agreed.

Tania Cameron
Member - 17 posts

I don't really agree with that statement as parking is a privaledge and not a right to start with and if this was true this would be unmanageable.

It depends on how the car park is operated, if the car park is operated by a third party then the third party has a duty of care to ensure that reasonable steps are taken, and that from a pure safety point of view that the car park is safe i.e. safe surfaces, segregated traffic/pedestrian routes, the employer should of course ensure that the provuision is appropriate, but there would not be a legal requirement for this.

If this responsibility was placed on the employer how woulld you deal with city centre sites where car parks are operated by the likes of NCP?

If on the other hand the carpark is operated by the employer then the duty of care is of course far greater, and reasonable steps should be taken to ensure the safety of the personnel using these, these measures would depend on the area and nature of the car park of course, and should be decided and communicated by means of a risk assessment.

I think that if this onus were to be placed on employers as suggested above, provision of "secure" parking would become far too expensive due to the measures needed and indeed the liability insurance required and parking would not be provided by any employer other than the very large and profitable, leaving the only option of public carparking, which of course are normally "at owners risk".

Philip Jeffs
Member - 300 posts

Sorry Gareth, in many ways I think Michael has it correct.

I am a manager at my place of work and am afforded a space on our limited car park by virtue of that fact. This was made clear to me at my interview, and I was shown where to park. That says to me that I have the space as a 'deemed' condition of my employment. As I have enjoyed that facility for nearly 10 years it has to be a right by now.

It is then up to our FM (spookily me) to make sure the car park provides the same level of care under the HSWA as do any other parts of our site. Even the 'smokers corner' is not exempt because we sanction its use.

I think you have a point on third party control of car parking, but the company will then have inspected the H&S plans etc and awarded a contract based on certain T&C's being met fully. H&S would be a major condition in just the same way as it would under any refurbishment work etc.

Anonymous

I agree with you on princple and think that is how it should operate, however, operating in an environment where this view is not upheld (airports) means that I see the provision of car parking slightly differently, especially when you consider that it is being roumoured that employment provision of car parking is to become taxed as a "benifit in kind" ....whole other issues there though!!!

I also agree with the sentiments of company operated car parks and the means by which they are managed, however, contracts of carparks with third parties are a more difficult issue, and whilst H&S will always be a major factor, enforcing and managing this is quite another.

We have one carpark in an area of the country I shan't name where they have a fully lit, open and visible car park, 24hr 90% coverage manned and recorded CCTV, 10ft razor wire topped finces, manned dog patrols 3 times an hour, access control to the car park and they still have incidents (extreme I know) but how far do you go!

I think that in the near future we will see this area tightened up in terms of liability and probably driven by the whole that sits with the insurers covering the liability. Interesting area though and good to get other peoples views on managing the issue!

Philip Jeffs
Member - 300 posts

It would be useful to know where that car park is as I certainly don't want my car parked there!

Anonymous

We publish at the entrance to the Car Parks that we accept no liability to damage to users cars, no matter how teh damage occurs.

This has been tested on a several occassions for braek-ins, and a few for damage to vehicles and the compalintant has had to suffer the loss.

I am investigating a current claim to damage topaint work on a Merc from concrete salts dripping onto his paintwork. My legal dept advise that he should claim on his insurance.

If anyone is interested I shall let you know how it goes, as this individual will not be as ameanable to let the issue drop without some sort of loss recovery and or compensation.

Anonymous

Surley the liability must depend on how the car park is provided:

Free - use by anyone reduced liability for damage caused by others but medium if caused by poor mantenance. H&S liability depends on type of incident. Example a supermarket where satff do not have alloted places

Staff only - Increased company liability for damage. Full H&S libility

Payed for - Major company liability for damage especially if caused by poor maintenance or company carpark staff plus total liability for H&S

Taking the concrete salt drip I consider the Merc owner has a very strong case as the car park owner should have closed off the area. This happened in a local Council car park. Also if salts are being leached out is the concrete becoming unstable?

Notices stating use is "At owner's or user's risk" have little validity in Law as one cannot sign away ones legal rights. A fact that has been tested in Law many times.

Smita Jamdar - Martineau Solicitors
Online advisor - 17 posts

There are two relevant legal issues here.

Firstly, because the company is making available the car park as part of the employees' working environment, under the health and safety legislation, you have a duty to take steps to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the car park is safe for your employees to use. Generally, that means making sure that it is structurally safe and safe to enter and exit. But in this context, it could mean that if you know that there have been assaults or muggings, you have a duty to consider what can be done to lessen the risk of such attacks. That might include warning staff about the risks, improving lighting, providing CCTV or manned security guards. How far you need to go will depend on how great the risk is, and whether there is anything that will in practical terms in fact reduce the risk. Under health and safety legislation, you have no duties in respect of your employees' property, such as their cars or the contents of their cars.

Secondly, if you lead your employees to assume that you are taking some responsibility for their cars and other property, then you will have to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care in protecting their cars whilst in the car park. Again that might include the measures I have outlined above, as well as putting in some sort of automated barrier. However, if you make it clear that you are taking no responsibility, for example by putting up signs that "vehicles are parked at your own risk", then you will not be expected to take additional steps to protect the vehicles. You cannot, unfortunately, opt out of your duties in respect of your employees' physical well being (as summarised above) in this way.

Anonymous

If car parking is provided at your place of work, and your car is damaged due to negligence on the part of another employee who would be responsible? There are disclaimer notices put up.

Anonymous

We pay for staff to park their cars in the car park of a nearby hotel.
I have been advised that cars have been broken into on a "regular" basis.
The car park has reasonable lighting and some CCTV but this does not prevent breakins.

I always advise staff not leave anything on display in their car that could be considered to be "valuable".

As we pay for staff to park in this car park do we take on any responsibility for the safety for staff and of the vehicles and their contents?

I presume the hotel would not accept any responsibility as they have the usual disclaimer posted.

Thank you

Philip Jeffs
Member - 300 posts

Since my last post above I've now negotiated a lease on a plot of land (1.5 acres) which we are going to use as staff parking.

I intend to only allow staff to park there who have signed a form to acknowldege the use of that car park under certain conditions. As its a new feature and not previously provided I feel we can lay down some ground rules from day one. Anyone not agreeing to those conditions will not be granted the right to park there.

The conditions will generally be - parked at your own risk, no employer liability for damage/theft, etc.

Silas Denyer
Member - 5 posts

Slightly Devil's advocate... if the car park is dark and "dangerous" (not suggesting it will be), and women refuse to accept the conditions but men do, can the women not make a claim under equal pay legislation that a benefit is being denied to them due to their unwillingness to compromise their personal safety due to threats predominantly affecting only women?

Philip Jeffs
Member - 300 posts

Silas, assuming your post is linked to mine above, I take your point.

Luckily we have installed floodlighting which is sensor controlled during hours of darkness, and walk to car park is via street lighting.

Silas Denyer
Member - 5 posts

Jeff, yes, it was re yours. That seems an excellent pragmatic solution, since it mirrors what an employee might do in, say, their own dark drive. I'm quite a strong believer in the idea that what employees find acceptable in their homes should be at least relevant to what they should accept at work!

brendan walsh
Member - 1 post

My car was damaged in my workplace carpark. Would my employer be liable to pay?

Anonymous

I am a blue badge holder, the company i work for has a large car park,i have a long walk from the car park to my work area, so i have a work permit from my company to park my car in the grounds of the plant they class this as a privalige, but it is only because i have a disability. Are my employers obligated to let me park as i am a disabled driver

Anonymous

We currently have a private car park (free), however, we will shortly be moving to new office premises (town centre) where no free staff car parking will be available. It has been suggested that we use a nearby 'pay and display'. This is at an extra cost of between £800 and £960 per person, per year. Employees have not been offered subsidy or pay increases to help with this.

There is no benefit to the company for being based in a city centre, rather than an out of town business park.

Where do we stand?

Anonymous

My car was broken into and stolen from when parked on a staff only hospital car park with 'at own risk'signs. All reasonable care was taken. This is a frequent occurance, another car was robbed and damaged same day as mine. Are the 'at risk' disclaimer signs legal? I have a staff parking permit to use this staff only park.

Paul Baker
Member - 2 posts

We hold an annual carnival event and allow cars to be park in close proximaty to the event.
Please could you advise on what needs to be on the parking signs to advise patrons with cars on the legal implication of leaving cars parked there.
I have seen signs in local supermarkets instructing on responsibility for cars or contents, is this the normal legal wording or is there something else we need to state.

your advice in this matter would be a great help to all concerned.

PAUL RILEY
Member - 3 posts

My senior manager wants me to arrange for adhesive stickers to be placed on the windscreens of colleagues who park incosiderately (eg, not entirely within designated bays) in our staff car park. His view is that the difficulty entailed in removing the stickers will 'tesach them a lesson'. I am cautious about adopting this practice since I believe we could be opening ourselves up to accusations of damage to private property (esp. if, for example, a colleague scratches their windscreen in the course of removing the sticker). Any comments and guidance, please?

David Cooper
Member - 6 posts

When a student teacher's car was locked in the school staff car park someone (probably a student) keyed it across four different panels. The cost of repair is estimated at £977.00 The car park does have a disclaimer sign which is quite hidden away. Other members of staff have had similar damage done to their vehicles and we have paid the excess on their insurance policy . The students excess is only £300. As the student is a new driver I am told that the cost of claiming on their insurance would be more expensive than paying for the damage herself due to the increased cost of insurance premium resulting from a claim over the next 3-5 years.

Please advise on my options. The student is considerering taking the school to the small claims court. Please advise if the school has a duty of care regardless of any signs. And as it was most likely a student who caused the damage then they do we also have a duty of responsibility for what our students damage?

Many thanks

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

This is an interesting legal question. There are three legal frameworks covering this question area. The first issue is the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. An occupier, the employer, is liable generally for all torts, negligence, nuisance, Rylands and Fletcher issues and so on ad so forth. (My keyboard batteries are dying so please excuse the missed letters) In an instance where a third party enters the land as a lawful visitor, any notices which exclude liability would largely be of no effect.

The second area is HSWA; the employer has a duty to make the site safe. This is determinable by the court in terms of the circumstances arising. If a car is damaged by the land, i.e. dripping cement and such like the land owner is liable whatever the signs say or do not say, it is not possible to exclude negligence on an occupier’s liability issue. In strict HSWA legislation the employee’s status is largely irrelevant as the damage is caused by the land and is therefore an OLA matter not a HSWA matter.

If the site is not adequately maintained so as to be a safe working environment, liability creeps in but the burden of proof here is higher than OLA so the best route is still through the OLA. Now the final area is contract law. It is never possible to escape liability for death or personal injury as this is provided for under s6 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act, AND THIS HAS BEEN ENLARGED TO ENCOMPASS NEGLIENCE so whereas previously the courts would not accept an s6 argument they now will look at it closely.

As to employee spaces, they are very straightforward indeed, they are a workplace and so both OLA and the HSWA apply in full force. In addition the Employment Rights Act and other employment law applies too, i.e. variation of terms of contract and etc.

So to summarise, you will always have an Occupiers Liability Act basis, then you can reinforce this with either a HSWA head of action or both plus the s6 head which provides for wider protection.

Where one employee damages another vehicle the driver of the offending vehicle is liable and can then provide details of his insurers to the injured party, even where they are both employees.

Additionally, the insurers of the land will not defend a claim which is issued for damage less than one and a half thousand pounds as the matter will be listed to the small claims track in the County Court and the legal costs of defending a claim will far exceed the fixed costs they could recover if they won.

I hope all of this helps.

Your friendly free lawyer.

James Fairchild
Member - 336 posts

Good post Alan - useful to all I suspect.

Carl Manning
Member - 22 posts

Some interesting posts, and it is nice to see the pragmatic approach taken by Phil's company. Car Parking is always emotive recent experience includes Union staff complainign they had not been consulted despite the availability increasing!

A case in Manchester Evening News last year indicated that HMRC are on terra firma when it comes to 'benefit in kind' I believe there was a resultant charge levied on workers at the place in question (nominal) to make use of a loophole.

Perhaps if everyone who could adopted a greener mode of transport the proble would be reduced to become manageable:)

Carl Manning
Member - 22 posts

How far does liability go? Local Councils frequently undersize their spaces so they can fit more spaces in, who is liable for any damage caused by a door opening and making contact with another car? The 'careless' driver or 'negligent' council?

Alan raised an interesting point regarding OLA and 'exemption from liability' signs, how many of the big stores use a sign as their defence?

Nigel DuPree
Member - 171 posts

Sorry, pardon, I always understood insurers to exclude cover when the vehicle was off the 'public highway' or on un-adopted road ways or private land !

The policy may be comprehensive and include "third party" but this i always understood to be a 'public liability' cover and were one to park off-road especially on someone elses property you did so at your own risk often reinforced by signage to that effect.

Shopping centers appear to be sort of attached to the public highway and insurers will often pay up but accepting any other offer of free parking on private land of an employer who 'out of the kindness of their heart provide a convenience', i'm not sure isn't a very grey are and a bit of a mine field.

A bit like a free lunch it most probably isn't one and one would be best advised to get a 'copy of terms and conditions' from employer before accepting any risk assciated with taking up any kind offer of free parking on their site ...........

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

Thank you for your kind replies. To clarify the points raised since my last post. The OLA requires the occupier to act reasonably so where the spaces are unduly restricted the occupier could be liable, if the spaces are reasonable the offending driver would be liable for damage to property and if aggressive or overly enthusiastic this could be criminal negligence leading to a s1 offence under the Criminal Damage Act. As for insurance policies excluding private land from the policy, this would only be in so far as their exposure is concerned, the landowner remains liable, the insurer of the car would only limit their responsibility to pursue a claim where an offender could not be found. It is not possible to restrict liability for damage done to property through the negligence of the land owner, the hurdle arises where the landowner disputes that the spaces are too small or other causative issues such as the safe operation of a barrier and etc. Then it is a battle of the evidence, usually in the small claims court. If the court accepts that the spaces or barrier or dripping glues and suchlike caused the damage it is usually prima facie a won case on those facts alone. If you have contents insurance on your home, make sure it has a legal expenses section; this costs about fourteen pounds but gives up to fifty thousand pounds of legal expense cover!

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

Just to clarify again, signs have little meaning or use and have no effect on liability. Shopping centres and schools, swimming baths, it doesn't matter, if there is damage caused by the land, no amount of signs will have any effect. If the damage is caused by a land users negligence they remain liable.

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

On the employers liability issues, if the land has suffered regular thefts or damage to vehicles, the empoyer has an enduring duty to keep the matter under review and provide adequate protection, in failing to do this they become increasingly exposed to a third party claim. Signs - yes you guessed it, have little meaning. Similarly if a doctors parking spaces at the surgery for vsitors say, keep getting vandalised, the occupiers risk is heightened.

Ian Goodman
Member - 1 post

Guys as so many have said it is a privledge not a benefit and if the employers places a sign saying ownerr leave at own risk then so be it. if you are fortunate to be given access to parking especially in London, dont look a gift horse in the mouth.

What I do suggest take a look around at the car park see if it follows the H&S guidelines lights are the marking in the corrct colour and visible to patrons that use it, aslo most comapnies have a tenants meeting see about becoming a member and if you do not think the security is to the level required than you can have your say.

Phill S
Member - 69 posts

A former work colleague was involved in an 'accident' at our main Tesco store.

He turned right from his parking space, where the arrows showed that he should have turned left.

He collided with an off-duty police officer!

Luckily there was no noticeable damage, and nothing else happened.

Except that this police officer was a traffic cop, and gave him a lecture.
He was informed (in no uncertain terms) that technically he was travelling the wrong way in a one way street, as there are 'no entry' signs and arrows marked, and that recent legislation meant that car parks used by the public are considered public highways.

Any thoughts?

Carl Manning
Member - 22 posts

So I take it the Police Officer followed due procedure, reported to his/her superiors he/she had been invovled in a road traffic collision and asked to be suspended pending an internal review, prior to returning to traffic duty?

Your post raises an interesting point reference the law, if ignorance is no defence, should updates such as that outlined not be widely publicised? I take it I can report eejits 'speeding' in a car park now, or traffic wardens can issue 'parking tickets' to those not shopping with children or parking in disabled bays without due cause?

Phill S
Member - 69 posts

Thanks for your reply Carl.

I expect the police officer was 'flexing his muscles', like some of them do, so he wouldn't have been interested in the paperwork.

when you say "eejits speeding in a car park" were they actually speeding?
You have me thinking now, I'm pretty sure that Tesco's doesn't have any reduced speed limit signs that I can remember, and 30mph (which would be the speed limit in a built-up area) is very fast for that kind of environment.

The problem with teen-racers is that they adapt their cars to make more noise, partly to give the illusion of more speed, so using high revs they could be travelling in a lower gear at under 30mph and sound like theyre doing 60.

As for publicising updates, I think they should be publicised a damn site more than they are.

When I was training to become a driving instructor (before I ran out of money!) I would have updates sent to me from the Department of Transport (as it was then).

I received a notification saying that overtaking on double white lines is now allowed in certain circumstances, within a week I found myself using this new ruling when I overtook a very old tractor which was travelling at under 10mph.
I was keen to keep up with proper driving techniques, so I followed the correct procedure, decided it was safe to carry out the overtake and went for it, the patrol car that was behind me also overtook the tractor, then about a mile along the road decided to stop me.
Luckily I was carrying my briefcase with the letter, and he was rightly annoyed and embarrassed to find that he knew less than me on this point, he was quite friendly and agreed that other than crossing the white lines he had no complaint, and in his own words "didnt want any paperwork" so we both went on our way.

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

Te police are not entitled to give legal advice. The officer was talking rubbish. Traffic schemes on private land only give adherent assistance to determining liability for negligence claims, they have no impact on road traffic law and road traffic law has no application on private land. Your friendly lawyer.

john hills
Member - 2 posts

There is no such thing as a totally secure and safe car park as theft and damage can be caused by anyone including those that have alawfull right to be there. There is an initiative by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) called the safer Parking Award `Park Mark` www.saferparking.com. The award is given following a crime and safety risk assessment along with an assessment on management procedures and practises. The award is on an annual assessmoent and can be withdrawn if crime or anti social behaviour occures or management procedures are found wanting. What is the point of all that barbed wire high fences if it creates a fear of crime. Good securty in any building or space is there to deter and detect any offences whilst creating a safe enviroment that encourage its use.

In relation to traffic offences it does not necessarally mean just because its private land, traffic law offences can`t be committed. You can be done for drink driving on the forecourt of a garage. Speeding may not be easy to detect due to distances travelled but reckless/careless could in certain circumstances. 15 mph in a small car park at 11am on a Saturday morning is more dangerous than 100mph on a motorway at 2am.

Health and safety, duty of care is something employers are responsble for if they give parking provision on their land then I would concider it to be a part of their place of work. Trip hazards, lighting, oil/fuel spillages should all be dealt with as if it were the office or factory floor.

Barry Lang
Member - 3 posts

Hello

Private land where the puplic are admitted (such as supermarkets) are subject to certain sections of the road traffic act 1992 such as driving the wrong way if it can be seen to be dangerous driving, speeding would certainly come in to this section.
The only private land to be specifically excluded are motor race circuits.

Regards

Barry Lang

Carl Manning
Member - 22 posts

Hmm was Barry the police officer I wonder:)

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

There are some poeple challenging the issue of public place, a company car park, in the context discussed above (upon which I was commenting) is a private place for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (not 92) and 1988 as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006 and otherwise. I refer to page 590 of Butterworths Police Law tenth edition being the current extant law. As for my advice, company car parks are therefore private. Supermarkets were not in the remit of the question. Your friendly lawyer.

Phill S
Member - 69 posts

Thankyou Alan John and Barry, some interesting points.

Barry Lang
Member - 3 posts

Hello

I was answering the comment about the supermarket car park prang but you are right Alan it was the RTA 1991 and some of the sections came into force in april 1992.
However it does mean that if the public have access some traffic rules do apply so it it would interesting to see the outcome of the challenge and the interpretation of Public Place.

Barry

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

As to the matter of public place, the courts have interpreted the meaning in the same manner as they have with regard to public order offences and they carry the 'normal natural' meaning, if the public can gain entry by paying a fee they are essentially a public place. The company car park where visitors can enter by invitation are not public unless there is no special reason for needing entry, by which the caselaw attempts to look at the necessary entry requirements. Accordingly a truly private company car park is a private place. I feel however we have generally strayed off the script. The main issue was the duty of care and the liability position of car park owners and my original advice has not really been discussed further so unless I can be of further assistance I will not contribute to this particular discussion board again as it adds length unnecessarily. I remain available if people have further questions however. I hope this helps. Safe driving everyone. Your friendly lawyer.

s s
Member - 1 post

im a pilot and parked my car at the staff carpark at the airport i work from. on return after a night away from the uk i found that my car was heavily damaged by another vehicle colliding with it and not reporting the accident. I immediately reported the incident to a member of the security staff who witnessed the damage. the car park does have cctv however ive been told that the camera scanning the location did not capture the incident or did cover the area in question, it also has a 'secure parks' award. i wish to claim for the damages from the airport which are estimated at £1600. the public car parks do have signs stating that the airport is not liable to any damage caused whilst using their car parks however at the remote staff car park there are no signs on display at all. the airline pays the airport an annual fee for use of the car park for their staff.

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

You have little ground foraction unless th car park owners were negligent in the managemet of the car park or breached a term of the contract to provide adequate protection. You are entitled however to seek the landowners assitance by way of records and suchlike in order to make reasonable enquries over the vehicle which may have caused the damage. The police can assist in some instances as section 35 of the Data Protection Act compliments the data retrival entitlement under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but they will only get involved if criminal damage is alleged.

James Fairchild
Member - 336 posts

If i were you, I would start a claim (against both the car park operator and the landowner) and see what happens.

In general, these signs that state "no liability accepted" are not worth the paper they're written on - the operators have a common law duty to look after vehicles in their care.

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

Issuing legal proceedings to 'see what happens' is both dangerous and unprofessional. A wasted costs order for a foolish claim will run into thousands of pounds and a case based on an urge to wreak revenge will have little chance of success. It is far better to establish a good sound claim in negligence against either the land owner for fialing in thier dty to povide a safe car park or the proposed defendant driver for causing damage by negligence. If neither is sustainable, drop the whole idea and choose to park elsewhere. It is one thing to suspect and quite another to prove.

Susan Sharp
Member - 3 posts

There is only a liability at law for injury, not property damage, so any speculative action would not succeed - the signs saying exclusion of all liability (whether for personal injury or property damage) aren't valid, BUT they can exclude liability for property damage. Unfortunately it is one of those unfortunate incidents that happen in life...

Alan Blacker
Member - 26 posts

For an exclusion clause to be effective it must comply with some rigorous tests and the clause is further subjected to rather aggressive mitigation by the courts, especially where the damage is great or onerous. It is always best to speak to the landowner first about provisions for damage before using the land, it is after all a licence or contract term and must be fully researched like any other agreement. Your friendly lawyer.