Rank: Forum user 
|
If a person delivering something (pizza menu) to a premises goes to the 'lavatory' on that said premises land and uses garden flowers as Andrex toilet tissue is that person a visitor or a trespasser under Occupiers Liability Act 1957 & 84.
The police will not act as they say that the said person has a legal right to be on the property and he was caught short!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not sure they have a "legal right" but I would definitely steer clear of their food!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't think Occupier's Liability Legislation is the correct frame of reference here.
You (as Occupier) didn't place the visitor at risk or create an attractive nuisance, rather the visitor caused 'damage' to your property. Neither could be considered to be trespassing as you invited them by contract to deliver your Pizza.
A very unsavoury incident and a strong letter of complaint to the business Head Office is in order.
In the absence of witnesses, any form of redress will be very difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:I don't think Occupier's Liability Legislation is the correct frame of reference here.
You (as Occupier) didn't place the visitor at risk or create an attractive nuisance, rather the visitor caused 'damage' to your property. Neither could be considered to be trespassing as you invited them by contract to deliver your Pizza.
A very unsavoury incident and a strong letter of complaint to the business Head Office is in order.
In the absence of witnesses, any form of redress will be very difficult.
I am just trying to get the facts of why the police would not act, the person was posting pizza menu flyers not delivering a pizza.....although im quite hungry now!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
zoltangera wrote:
I am just trying to get the facts of why the police would not act, the person was posting pizza menu flyers not delivering a pizza.....although im quite hungry now!!!
Well in that case, phone the company and complain, tell them you want a large pizza free by way of settlement and ensure it isn't the postie who is cooking it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Occupier’s liability is about the Occupiers duties to visitors on their property. It has nothing to do with classifying whether they are trespassers or not. In this case that is irrelevant. Technically what they have done is criminal damage: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”
As far as defining damage is concerned in Morphitis v. Salmon (1990), “ ‘The authorities show that the term "damage" for the purpose of this provision, should be widely interpreted so as to conclude not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness. “So if this incident has cost you something to put right, then it should be classed as criminal damage and the police should investigate this and do something about this. Whether they will is down to how much effort you can be bothered applying pressure on the police to do something about it. Interestingly those cases where minimum damage of this sort is involved, the case is often connected to things like dirty protests and other similar political acts, where the authorities are looking for an excuse to prosecute and find this law better than nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:Occupier’s liability is about the Occupiers duties to visitors on their property. It has nothing to do with classifying whether they are trespassers or not. In this case that is irrelevant. Technically what they have done is criminal damage: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”
As far as defining damage is concerned in Morphitis v. Salmon (1990), “ ‘The authorities show that the term "damage" for the purpose of this provision, should be widely interpreted so as to conclude not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness. “So if this incident has cost you something to put right, then it should be classed as criminal damage and the police should investigate this and do something about this. Whether they will is down to how much effort you can be bothered applying pressure on the police to do something about it. Interestingly those cases where minimum damage of this sort is involved, the case is often connected to things like dirty protests and other similar political acts, where the authorities are looking for an excuse to prosecute and find this law better than nothing.
Thank you for your comments they have helped a lot, much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I garee, I don't think that OLA is as such the issue here. In most cases (not all) trespass is a civil matter and the Police are unlikely to have any role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.