Jump to content


My Real Name

Fined by council for parking on private land

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3632 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Saying that - It's not immediately apparent where he was parked, or what he was ticketed for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems stupid the council say pavement, so who owns the pavement ? yet they are saying private property , so which is it

 

sounds like he needs an appeal


NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a few locations where the pavement (maintained by the council) COVERS the basement area of the landowner, and may even have glass tiles for light. Glasgow issues tickets for bikes parked in this way, so it is hardly any change in the interpretation of the law.

Edited by buzby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A doctor has lost a court battle over parking tickets issued to a scooter parked on his land - because a judge ruled he only owns the subsoil.

This reminds me of an old saying:

The meek shall inherit the earth but the strong retain mineral rights.

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seems stupid the council say pavement, so who owns the pavement ? yet they are saying private property , so which is it

 

sounds like he needs an appeal

 

After paying £10,000 to go to the high court I doubt he can afford to appeal further, lol. The point was that even though he owns the footway it is still a public right of way so he got approx 30 PCNs for footway parking.

 

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cleveland+street+london&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=16.052594,50.625&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cleveland+St,+London,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.523297,-0.142157&spn=0,359.975281&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.523367,-0.142244&panoid=iChYglh-wpdByk2DtDeD4Q&cbp=12,30.62,,0,5

 

As you can see its not exactly the same as parking in your drive and as the Council rightly pointed out there is a FREE motorcycle bay 5 feet away.

Edited by green_and_mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Typical Daily Mail over reaction the ruling does nothing to imply you can be done for parking on your own drive. The laws regarding public rights of way go back years unless your drive leads somewhere other than your house and the public have passed and repassed over it freely it would never be classed as highway and you would not get a ticket. The £10,000 would have been better spent on a low wall or fence then it could not be classed as public highway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he can build anything on it because it would block the right of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typical Daily Mail over reaction the ruling does nothing to imply you can be done for parking on your own drive. The laws regarding public rights of way go back years unless your drive leads somewhere other than your house and the public have passed and repassed over it freely it would never be classed as highway and you would not get a ticket. The £10,000 would have been better spent on a low wall or fence then it could not be classed as public highway.

 

And then borrow £10,000 more for a crane to lift your own moped over your own wall onto your own property?

 

I had a similar situation in Nottingham. The flat I used to own was above a shop and had a 30ft frontage that met with the pavement. The only defining line was a single row of paving blocks to define where the private 'pavement' ended and the actual pavement began near the road.

 

Traffic wardens used to have a field day with all the cars parked on the real pavement, but could not touch the ones parked on the private property, even though most people assumed it was one large wide pavement.

 

I frequently heard victims asking 'but what about those cars' to be answered with 'they are on private property'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think he can build anything on it because it would block the right of way.

 

Good point - I'm sure that the Health & Safety oiks would have something to say about it as well.

A 'Lose Lose' situation if ever there was one to paraphrase that awful modernism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for the Council IMO - a scooter parked there would have been an obstruction to pedestrians. The fact it was adjacent to a free Bike parking area shows a cavalier disregard to life and limb - strange for a doctor!

 

I had expected there to be various 'inshots' where the bike would be tastefully concealed and the PA's 'nabbed' him unjustly - but this clearly isn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Health & Safety would surely only be concerned if a fence was covered in razor wire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And then borrow £10,000 more for a crane to lift your own moped over your own wall onto your own property?

 

He has no drop kerb so by repeatedly crossing the footway to park he is commititing an offence under the Highways act anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Health & Safety would surely only be concerned if a fence was covered in razor wire.

 

Being a Daily Mail (among others) reader it was a typical over-reaction on my part to emphasise a valid point.;-);)

 

Seriously though, opinion is obviously divided on this matter albeit the land is undeniably private property & new ground has been broken here (pun intended).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has no drop kerb so by repeatedly crossing the footway to park he is commititing an offence under the Highways act anyway.

 

AHA!!!!! Got you!!!!! No he isn't. You have the right to drive across a footpath to access your property as long as you don't damage the footpath. There is no requirement to have a dropped kerb. If you can just quote the exact part that says you cannot I will be happy to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a Daily Mail (among others) reader it was a typical over-reaction on my part to emphasise a valid point.;-);)

 

Seriously though, opinion is obviously divided on this matter albeit the land is undeniably private property & new ground has been broken here (pun intended).

 

This is not really new Westminster set a precedent ages ago with M/Cs parked on shop frontages in the west end the same principle was upheld at adjudication that if the public have been freely allowed to pass its highway. The only difference here is the bloke was stupid enough to go to the High Court and add further costs to his already hefty bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Health & Safety would surely only be concerned if a fence was covered in razor wire.

 

Only in the Uk!

The only place in the world where if you break in to my home and my dog bites you, YOU can sue ME!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AHA!!!!! Got you!!!!! No he isn't. You have the right to drive across a footpath to access your property as long as you don't damage the footpath. There is no requirement to have a dropped kerb. If you can just quote the exact part that says you cannot I will be happy to be corrected.

 

16 Vehicle crossings over footways and verges

(1) Where—

(a) the occupier of any premises adjoining or having access to a highway habitually takes or permits to be taken a mechanically propelled vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) across a kerbed footway or a verge in the highway to or from those premises; and

(b) the highway authority—

(i) have not constructed a vehicle crossing for the premises (whether under section 184 of the Act of 1980 or any corresponding earlier enactment or otherwise); and

(ii) have not served a notice under subsection (1) or (3) of that section on the owner and the occupier of the premises,

the relevant authority may serve a notice within the period specified in the notice, being no sooner than 28 days from the date on which the notice is served, requiring the occupier to cease taking or permitting to be taken mechanically propelled vehicles across the kerbed footway or verge.

(2) Nothing in a notice under subsection (1) above shall have the effect of prohibiting the occupier from enjoying the benefit of—

(a) any relevant development of the premises which is authorised by a planning permission granted on an application made at least 8 weeks before the date on which this section comes into force; or

(b) any established or proposed relevant use of the premises, or any relevant operations carried out or proposed to be carried out in, over or under the premises, the lawfulness of which is conclusively presumed under section 191 or 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) by virtue of a certificate issued on an application made not less than 8 weeks before that date (whether under that section or any corresponding earlier enactment); or

© any relevant development of the premises which is permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995 No. 418) (or any corresponding earlier order) and which is carried out before that date.

(3) In determining whether to exercise their powers under subsection (1) above, the relevant authority shall have regard to—

(a) the need to prevent damage to a footway or verge;

(b) the need to ensure so far as practicable, safe access to and egress from premises;

© the need to facilitate, so far as practicable, the passage of vehicular traffic in and parking of vehicles on highways; and

(d) the need to prevent obstruction of the footway or verge.

(4) A notice under subsection (1) above shall—

(a) inform the person on whom it is served of his right to object to the notice;

(b) state the effect of subsection (10) below; and

© inform that person—

(i) of the relevant authority’s powers under section 184(1) or 184(3) of the Act of 1980, as the case may be, to execute works for the construction of a vehicle crossing over the footway; and

(ii) of any reasons why the council would be unlikely to execute such works if requested so to do.

(5) A person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) above may within 21 days from the date of his being served therewith serve an objection in writing on the highway authority.

(6) The highway authority shall consider any objection served under subsection (5) above and, within 21 days from the date of their being served therewith—

(a) serve a notice in writing on the person who served the objection stating that the notice under subsection (1) above shall not be withdrawn; or

(b) withdraw the notice.

(7) A person on whom a notice under subsection (6) above is served may within 28 days from the date of his being served therewith appeal to the county court on any of the following grounds—

(a) that the notice is not justified by the terms of subsection (1) above;

(b) that there has been some defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice;

© that the requirement in the notice is unreasonable.

(8) On an appeal to the county court under this section, the court shall make such order as it thinks fit.

(9) A notice under subsection (1) above becomes effective—

(a) in the case where no objection is served under subsection (5) above, at the expiration of the period during which the person served with the notice may serve an objection;

(b) in the case where a notice is served by the council under subsection (6) above, and no appeal is made under subsection (7) above at the expiration of the period during which the person served with the notice may appeal; or

© where such an appeal is made and is unsuccessful on the date on which the order of the court is made.

(10) Where a notice under subsection (1) above has become effective, the authority by whom the notice was served may execute such works as may be necessary to prevent mechanically propelled vehicles from being taken across the footway or verge, and may recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the owner or occupier of the premises in question.

(11) Where at the time when any works are proposed under subsection (10) above any occupier of the premises in question habitually takes an invalid carriage across the footway or verge at the place where the works are proposed, no works may be executed under that subsection so as to prevent invalid carriages of the same type being taken across the footway or verge at that place.

(12) If a person—

(a) knowingly uses a footway or verge as a crossing in contravention of a notice given under subsection (1) above; or

(b) knowingly permits it to be so used; or

© without reasonable excuse removes, damages, alters or defaces any works executed under subsection (10) above,

he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(13) In this section—

  • “the Act of 1980” means the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66);
  • “highway” means a highway maintainable at the public expense by a borough council or by Transport for London;
  • “invalid carriage” means a vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person, being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability;
  • “relevant authority” means—
    (a)
    a borough council, in respect of any kerbed footway or verge in any highway maintained by them; and
     
    (b)
    Transport for London in respect of a kerbed footway or verge in a highway maintained by them;
     
     
     
  • “relevant development” and “relevant operations” mean development or operations carried out for the purpose of parking a mechanically propelled vehicle on the premises;
  • “relevant use” means use of the premises for the purpose of parking such a vehicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only in the Uk!

The only place in the world where if you break in to my home and my dog bites you, YOU can sue ME!

 

I don't think that is true anyhow it would be impossible to legislate for removal of duty of care due to the intent of the injured party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And where exactly in that lot does it say you are committing an offence if you drive across a footpath? It refers to notices, but at no point on first glance does it say you are committing and offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only in the Uk!

The only place in the world where if you break in to my home and my dog bites you, YOU can sue ME!

When has that ever happened? How is that health & safety related?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has no drop kerb so by repeatedly crossing the footway to park he is commititing an offence under the Highways act anyway.

16 Vehicle crossings over footways and verges
He may well have pushed the scooter across the footway, which is not an offence, as it is no longer a mechanically propelled vehicle.

 

Although I'm sure he would balls up the defence, and end up being fined for £10,000. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this have any bizarre implications for PPCs? If it is private land but a public footway, what is the status of a private road? What if he had got a PPC to ticket other mopeds - would those tickets stand (invoice + fines argument excepted)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...