How long must a display of parking charges and conditions be visible before they become effective

[Fredxx]

We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.

The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not stolen
or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do anything.

I am temped to put a sign on the car, yes with permission of the other
joint land owners/users, saying that there is now a PCN for £100 for any
parking on this road where permission has not bee granted by the other
road users.

How long must this sign be affixed to be valid? Either to a pole or the
windscreen.[1]

Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?

[1] I am aware this could count as criminal damage, but then would a car
parked on private property also be construed as criminal damage?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Fredxx
We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.
The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not stolen
or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do anything.

We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator who
had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left it there
for the duration of their customers trip abroad.

The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public road
for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to make this
a viable operation.

Although given some neighbourhoods (and we are at least 10 miles from
Birmingham airport) you might not find a car - or at least a complete one
- after a couple of weeks.

[Theo]

Post by Jethro_uk
We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator who
had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left it there
for the duration of their customers trip abroad.
The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public road
for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to make this
a viable operation.
Although given some neighbourhoods (and we are at least 10 miles from
Birmingham airport) you might not find a car - or at least a complete one
- after a couple of weeks.

I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other location,
leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping, please call
07..... for access'?

Being on private land presumably doesn't mean you must afford the owner 24/7
access to it, assuming access is available without due obstruction (such as
fees)?

A bit like that if I park in Tesco's car park and they shut the barrier at
closing time, I can't demand to get access at 3am when I happen to show up.

If this was some kind of airport parking scam, the operator (and their
customer) would soon get the message.

Wouldn't work on the public highway though.

Theo

[Norman Wells]

Post by Theo

Post by Jethro_uk
We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator who
had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left it there
for the duration of their customers trip abroad.
The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public road
for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to make this
a viable operation.
Although given some neighbourhoods (and we are at least 10 miles from
Birmingham airport) you might not find a car - or at least a complete one
- after a couple of weeks.

I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other location,
leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping, please call
07..... for access'?

You'd be prosecuted for an offence under Section 54(1) of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012. It's not allowed.

Post by Theo
Being on private land presumably doesn't mean you must afford the owner 24/7
access to it, assuming access is available without due obstruction (such as
fees)?

Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the driver
parked, whether it was open or not.

Post by Theo
A bit like that if I park in Tesco's car park and they shut the barrier at
closing time, I can't demand to get access at 3am when I happen to show up.

That's right. Passing a fixed barrier on entry is implied consent to
being penned in. Maybe not permanently, but until it is opened again,
probably in accordance with prominent signage.

[Jeff]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other location,
leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping, please call
07..... for access'?

You'd be prosecuted for an offence under Section 54(1) of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012.  It's not allowed.

NO, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states:

"To be guilty of the offence, a person must undertake one of these
actions with the intention of preventing or inhibiting a person entitled
to move the vehicle concerned from moving the vehicle. Consequently, a
person who moved an obstructively parked vehicle a short distance
intending to regain access to his or her property would not be
committing the offence in circumstances where he or she did not intend
to prevent the driver of the vehicle from subsequently retrieving it."

Jeff

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jeff

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other location,
leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping, please call
07..... for access'?

You'd be prosecuted for an offence under Section 54(1) of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012.  It's not allowed.

"To be guilty of the offence, a person must undertake one of these
actions with the intention of preventing or inhibiting a person entitled
to move the vehicle concerned from moving the vehicle. Consequently, a
person who moved an obstructively parked vehicle a short distance
intending to regain access to his or her property would not be
committing the offence in circumstances where he or she did not intend
to prevent the driver of the vehicle from subsequently retrieving it."

While you're right about the law, that text is not something the
Protection of Freedoms Act "states". Your quote is from the Explanatory
Notes, which are not part of the Act.

[Fredxx]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo

Post by Jethro_uk
We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator who
had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left it there
for the duration of their customers trip abroad.
The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public road
for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to make this
a viable operation.
Although given some neighbourhoods (and we are at least 10 miles from
Birmingham airport) you might not find a car - or at least a complete one
- after a couple of weeks.

I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other location,
leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping, please call
07..... for access'?

You'd be prosecuted for an offence under Section 54(1) of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012.  It's not allowed.

Even if the vehicle was causing an obstruction?

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
Being on private land presumably doesn't mean you must afford the owner 24/7
access to it, assuming access is available without due obstruction (such as
fees)?

Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the driver
parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
A bit like that if I park in Tesco's car park and they shut the barrier at
closing time, I can't demand to get access at 3am when I happen to show up.

That's right.  Passing a fixed barrier on entry is implied consent to
being penned in.  Maybe not permanently, but until it is opened again,
probably in accordance with prominent signage.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other location,
leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping, please call
07..... for access'?

You'd be prosecuted for an offence under Section 54(1) of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012.  It's not allowed.

Even if the vehicle was causing an obstruction?

Yes. You can't impound a vehicle. Only the police and local authorities can
do that.

You can move it, so long as you move it to a location that's close to where
the driver left it and, most importantly, fully accessible. If the driver
can't just walk up to the vehicle, get in it and drive away, then it's been
unlawfully impounded.

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
Being on private land presumably doesn't mean you must afford the owner 24/7
access to it, assuming access is available without due obstruction (such as
fees)?

Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the driver
parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Indefinitely. If the barrier wasn't in place when the vehicle arrived, then
you can't subsequently install a barrier and use it to impound the vehicle.

In reality, of course, if a vehicle is left there for a considerable length
of time then it will reach the point at which it would be reasonable for you
(or, more importantly, the local authority) to consider it abandoned. At
which point it can be removed.

Mark

[GB]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other location,
leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping, please call
07..... for access'?

You'd be prosecuted for an offence under Section 54(1) of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012.  It's not allowed.

Even if the vehicle was causing an obstruction?

Yes. You can't impound a vehicle. Only the police and local authorities can
do that.
You can move it, so long as you move it to a location that's close to where
the driver left it and, most importantly, fully accessible. If the driver
can't just walk up to the vehicle, get in it and drive away, then it's been
unlawfully impounded.

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
Being on private land presumably doesn't mean you must afford the owner 24/7
access to it, assuming access is available without due obstruction (such as
fees)?

Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the driver
parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Indefinitely. If the barrier wasn't in place when the vehicle arrived, then
you can't subsequently install a barrier and use it to impound the vehicle.

Well, you can ... :)

https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/24517420.travellers-trapped-isle-wight-beauty-spot-car-park-set-ultimatum/

Post by Mark Goodge
In reality, of course, if a vehicle is left there for a considerable length
of time then it will reach the point at which it would be reasonable for you
(or, more importantly, the local authority) to consider it abandoned. At
which point it can be removed.
Mark

[Jeff]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells
Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the driver
parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Indefinitely. If the barrier wasn't in place when the vehicle arrived, then
you can't subsequently install a barrier and use it to impound the vehicle.
In reality, of course, if a vehicle is left there for a considerable length
of time then it will reach the point at which it would be reasonable for you
(or, more importantly, the local authority) to consider it abandoned. At
which point it can be removed.
Mark

But if it is on private land the LA will not do anything to remove it,
unfortunately it is up to the land owner, just as it is for any illegal
dumped waste.

Jeff

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jeff

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells
Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the driver
parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Indefinitely. If the barrier wasn't in place when the vehicle arrived,
then you can't subsequently install a barrier and use it to impound the
vehicle.
In reality, of course, if a vehicle is left there for a considerable
length of time then it will reach the point at which it would be
reasonable for you (or, more importantly, the local authority) to
consider it abandoned. At which point it can be removed.
Mark

But if it is on private land the LA will not do anything to remove it,
unfortunately it is up to the land owner, just as it is for any illegal
dumped waste.

I am curious as to why you can't regard a car so situated as waste and
just crush it an move one like you would a fridge or a sofa ?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jeff

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells
Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the driver
parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Indefinitely. If the barrier wasn't in place when the vehicle arrived,
then you can't subsequently install a barrier and use it to impound the
vehicle.
In reality, of course, if a vehicle is left there for a considerable
length of time then it will reach the point at which it would be
reasonable for you (or, more importantly, the local authority) to
consider it abandoned. At which point it can be removed.
Mark

But if it is on private land the LA will not do anything to remove it,
unfortunately it is up to the land owner, just as it is for any illegal
dumped waste.

I am curious as to why you can't regard a car so situated as waste and
just crush it an move one like you would a fridge or a sofa ?

Because, if it hasn't actually been abandoned, then it would be theft
and a criminal offence for which you could be imprisoned.

The onus would be on you to prove that it had been abandoned, for which
you would have to have a genuine belief that the person to whom the
property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps,
regardless of how long it's been there. And that may be a bit difficult
if it has number plates for example and even more so if it's properly
taxed, MOT'd and insured.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jeff

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells
Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the
driver parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Indefinitely. If the barrier wasn't in place when the vehicle
arrived, then you can't subsequently install a barrier and use it to
impound the vehicle.
In reality, of course, if a vehicle is left there for a considerable
length of time then it will reach the point at which it would be
reasonable for you (or, more importantly, the local authority) to
consider it abandoned. At which point it can be removed.
Mark

But if it is on private land the LA will not do anything to remove it,
unfortunately it is up to the land owner, just as it is for any
illegal dumped waste.

I am curious as to why you can't regard a car so situated as waste and
just crush it an move one like you would a fridge or a sofa ?

Because, if it hasn't actually been abandoned, then it would be theft
and a criminal offence for which you could be imprisoned.
The onus would be on you to prove that it had been abandoned, for which
you would have to have a genuine belief that the person to whom the
property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps,
regardless of how long it's been there. And that may be a bit difficult
if it has number plates for example and even more so if it's properly
taxed, MOT'd and insured.

So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jeff

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells
Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the
driver parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Indefinitely. If the barrier wasn't in place when the vehicle
arrived, then you can't subsequently install a barrier and use it to
impound the vehicle.
In reality, of course, if a vehicle is left there for a considerable
length of time then it will reach the point at which it would be
reasonable for you (or, more importantly, the local authority) to
consider it abandoned. At which point it can be removed.
Mark

But if it is on private land the LA will not do anything to remove it,
unfortunately it is up to the land owner, just as it is for any
illegal dumped waste.

I am curious as to why you can't regard a car so situated as waste and
just crush it an move one like you would a fridge or a sofa ?

Because, if it hasn't actually been abandoned, then it would be theft
and a criminal offence for which you could be imprisoned.
The onus would be on you to prove that it had been abandoned, for which
you would have to have a genuine belief that the person to whom the
property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps,
regardless of how long it's been there. And that may be a bit difficult
if it has number plates for example and even more so if it's properly
taxed, MOT'd and insured.

So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

Then it may be a little bit easier. But that's not decisive.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?

Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately. As the
registration number may have been noted at the time

In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing or destroying
evidence related to a crime.

Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.


bb

[Jethro_uk]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately. As
the registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing or
destroying evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

You could stretch that to anything flytipped on your property. Who knows
if there's a weapon in one of those bags ?

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately. As the
registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing or destroying
evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

It isn't an absolute offence like, eg, driving a car with an
under-inflated tyre.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately. As the
registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing or destroying
evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately. As the
registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing or destroying
evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!

Well... an intent would have to be proven or necessarily and inescapably
(as well as reasonably) inferred.

Bald tyre offences (etc) do not require such evidence.

Offences against the course of justice do.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately. As the
registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing or destroying
evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!

Well... an intent would have to be proven or necessarily and inescapably
(as well as reasonably) inferred.

But wouldn't intent only need to be established for the "criminal act" of removing
the car without the owner's consent ?

Such that they could possibly also be found guilty of any further crimes, arising
from that "criminal act", if so established ?


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately. As the
registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing or destroying
evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!

Well... an intent would have to be proven or necessarily and inescapably
(as well as reasonably) inferred.

But wouldn't intent only need to be established for the "criminal act" of removing
the car without the owner's consent ?

No. That is an entirely separate matter. One can only be guilty of
"concealing or destroying evidence related to a crime" if it is done
knowingly.

Think about it. If knowledge and intent were not necessary elements of
that offence, every dustman and waste disposal operative in the country
would be at risk of prosecution for every dustbin whose unknown contents
were destroyed or otherwise rendered unavailable.

Post by billy bookcase
Such that they could possibly also be found guilty of any further crimes, arising
from that "criminal act", if so established ?

The two things are not connected.

TWOCing a car is an offence (with exceptions which have already been
discussed in the thread).

Knowingly destroying evidence relevant to a crime is quite another and
there is no reason to regard every parked car as containing such evidence.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately. As the
registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing or destroying
evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!

Well... an intent would have to be proven or necessarily and inescapably
(as well as reasonably) inferred.

But wouldn't intent only need to be established for the "criminal act" of removing
the car without the owner's consent ?

No. That is an entirely separate matter. One can only be guilty of "concealing or
destroying evidence related to a crime" if it is done knowingly.
Think about it. If knowledge and intent were not necessary elements of that offence,
every dustman and waste disposal operative in the country would be at risk of
prosecution for every dustbin whose unknown contents were destroyed or otherwise
rendered unavailable.

Think about it. Dustmen and waste dispoal operatives aren't "already"
committing a crime. Are they ?


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately. As the
registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing or destroying
evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!

Well... an intent would have to be proven or necessarily and inescapably
(as well as reasonably) inferred.

But wouldn't intent only need to be established for the "criminal act" of removing
the car without the owner's consent ?

No. That is an entirely separate matter. One can only be guilty of "concealing or
destroying evidence related to a crime" if it is done knowingly.
Think about it. If knowledge and intent were not necessary elements of that offence,
every dustman and waste disposal operative in the country would be at risk of
prosecution for every dustbin whose unknown contents were destroyed or otherwise
rendered unavailable.

Think about it. Dustmen and waste dispoal operatives aren't "already"
committing a crime. Are they ?

How do you know that?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no
number plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately.
As the registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing
or destroying evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!

Well... an intent would have to be proven or necessarily and inescapably
(as well as reasonably) inferred.

But wouldn't intent only need to be established for the "criminal act"
of removing the car without the owner's consent ?

If you mean the Theft Act s1 (theft) then no, because there is no
dishonesty. If you mean the Theft Act s12 ("taking motor vehicle or
other conveyance without authority") then no, because he is not
taking it "for his own or another's use" or driving it or being
carried in or on it.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no
number plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately.
As the registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing
or destroying evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!

Well... an intent would have to be proven or necessarily and inescapably
(as well as reasonably) inferred.

But wouldn't intent only need to be established for the "criminal act"
of removing the car without the owner's consent ?

If you mean the Theft Act s1 (theft) then no, because there is no
dishonesty. If you mean the Theft Act s12 ("taking motor vehicle or
other conveyance without authority") then no, because he is not
taking it "for his own or another's use" or driving it or being
carried in or on it.

My mistake. I assumed it might be driven away and dumped somewhere
else.


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no
number plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately.
As the registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing
or destroying evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!

Well... an intent would have to be proven or necessarily and inescapably
(as well as reasonably) inferred.

But wouldn't intent only need to be established for the "criminal act"
of removing the car without the owner's consent ?

If you mean the Theft Act s1 (theft) then no, because there is no
dishonesty. If you mean the Theft Act s12 ("taking motor vehicle or
other conveyance without authority") then no, because he is not
taking it "for his own or another's use" or driving it or being
carried in or on it.

My mistake. I assumed it might be driven away and dumped somewhere
else.

If they were going to actually *drive* it away then that would be
multiple offences, including presumably criminal damage involved in
getting into it and hotwiring it, and then driving a vehicle without
numberplates, tax, MOT, or insurance. And then, yes, TWOCing too.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no
number plates ?

But if it's got no number plates, how would you know it was untaxed,
uninsured and un MOTd ?
Maybe it was stolen and used in a crime and the criminals removed the
number plates when abandoning it, and disposed of them separately.
As the registration number may have been noted at the time
In fact by removing it, a person might be inadvertently concealing
or destroying evidence related to a crime.
Which quite possibly is itself a criminal offence.

Not if it's inadvertent!

Hence the word "possibly" !!

Well... an intent would have to be proven or necessarily and inescapably
(as well as reasonably) inferred.

But wouldn't intent only need to be established for the "criminal act"
of removing the car without the owner's consent ?

If you mean the Theft Act s1 (theft) then no, because there is no
dishonesty.

Actually, there may well be dishonesty. It's not enough just to say
there isn't.

The criterion in the Section 2(1)(c) of the Theft Act is not whether it
has number plates but whether 'he appropriates the property in the
belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered
by taking reasonable steps'. If that person can be, then appropriation
of it is dishonest and therefore theft.

And it's the courts who will determine that question, not the person who
removes it.

[GB]

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

Out of interest, if there are no number plates, how do you know about
the tax, etc?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by GB

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

Out of interest, if there are no number plates, how do you know about
the tax, etc?

By the same token, how would the authorities ?

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by GB

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

Out of interest, if there are no number plates, how do you know about
the tax, etc?

By the same token, how would the authorities ?

Find the VIN and look that up?

[Andy Burns]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by GB

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

Out of interest, if there are no number plates, how do you know about
the tax, etc?

By the same token, how would the authorities ?

VIN numbers are prominent in windscreens, on the whole ...

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by GB

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

Out of interest, if there are no number plates, how do you know about
the tax, etc?

By the same token, how would the authorities ?

Well no. Because the question was originally asked in response to "your own" suggestion
that "inconvenienced members of the public" should have the right to remove " untaxed,
uninsured and unMOTd vehicles ..........With no number plates".

Same as with fridges and sofas.

But if the car had no numberplates.how would those self same inconvenienced members
of the public know whether of not it was untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd ?


bb

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by GB

Post by Jethro_uk
So how about an untaxed, uninsured and unMOTd car then ? With no number
plates ?

Out of interest, if there are no number plates, how do you know about
the tax, etc?

By the same token, how would the authorities ?

VIN plates?

Fiddly and labour-intensive, but reasonably accurate.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 09:45:54 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jeff

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells
Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the driver
parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Indefinitely. If the barrier wasn't in place when the vehicle arrived,
then you can't subsequently install a barrier and use it to impound the
vehicle.
In reality, of course, if a vehicle is left there for a considerable
length of time then it will reach the point at which it would be
reasonable for you (or, more importantly, the local authority) to
consider it abandoned. At which point it can be removed.

But if it is on private land the LA will not do anything to remove it,
unfortunately it is up to the land owner, just as it is for any illegal
dumped waste.

I am curious as to why you can't regard a car so situated as waste and
just crush it an move one like you would a fridge or a sofa ?

Cars are different because they have to be registered with DVLA and there is
a certain amount of paperwork involved in disposing of one - you can't just
take it to the tip or a breaker's yard. And you, not being the registered
keeper of the vehicle, don't have access to the information you need in
order to complete that paperwork.

However, that is one of the reasons why, as I said in a parallel response,
local authorities will remove abandoned vehicles, because they both have a
legal obligation to do so and have the legal authority to complete the
paperwork as a third party rather than the keeper.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Jeff

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx

Post by Norman Wells
Yes, you must, unless there was a fixed barrier there when the driver
parked, whether it was open or not.

How long would you propose the vehicle could be there before
implementing a barrier?

Indefinitely. If the barrier wasn't in place when the vehicle arrived, then
you can't subsequently install a barrier and use it to impound the vehicle.
In reality, of course, if a vehicle is left there for a considerable length
of time then it will reach the point at which it would be reasonable for you
(or, more importantly, the local authority) to consider it abandoned. At
which point it can be removed.

But if it is on private land the LA will not do anything to remove it,
unfortunately it is up to the land owner, just as it is for any illegal
dumped waste.

The local authority will remove it, because they have a legal obligation to
do so under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. This is specific to
motor vehicles, and not generally applicable to all fly-tipped waste on
private ground (where, as you say, the local authority will generally
decline to take action unless they are able to recover costs from the
landowner).

The reason why local authorities do have to remove abandoned cars is because
they have access to DVLA records enabling them track down the last
registered keeper and they are able to use that information to prosecute
people who abandon vehicles.

Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Theo
Being on private land

This wasn't private land. It was the public highway outside my house.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Theo
Being on private land

This wasn't private land. It was the public highway outside my house.

Fredxx's scenario that started this thread was that it was on a private
road.

If your scenario is that of a public road, you don't own it or have any
rights over it, even if it is right outside your house. A car that is
legally taxed and insured can be parked for as long as anyone likes
wherever there are no parking restrictions in force.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Theo
Being on private land

This wasn't private land. It was the public highway outside my house.

Fredxx's scenario that started this thread was that it was on a private
road.
If your scenario is that of a public road, you don't own it or have any
rights over it, even if it is right outside your house. A car that is
legally taxed and insured can be parked for as long as anyone likes
wherever there are no parking restrictions in force.

That may be true in practice, but in law one has no right to stay at one place
on a public highway. So the authorities could demand you move it if they
wanted to.

[Jeff Layman]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Theo
Being on private land

This wasn't private land. It was the public highway outside my house.

Fredxx's scenario that started this thread was that it was on a private
road.
If your scenario is that of a public road, you don't own it or have any
rights over it, even if it is right outside your house. A car that is
legally taxed and insured can be parked for as long as anyone likes
wherever there are no parking restrictions in force.

That may be true in practice, but in law one has no right to stay at one place
on a public highway. So the authorities could demand you move it if they
wanted to.

I was told that many years ago, and that you could theoretically be
charged with obstructing the highway if the car wasn't moved. I've no
idea if that is now true or not.

[Peter Walker]

Post by Theo

Post by Jethro_uk
We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator
who had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left
it there for the duration of their customers trip abroad.
The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public
road for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to
make this a viable operation.
Although given some neighbourhoods (and we are at least 10 miles from
Birmingham airport) you might not find a car - or at least a complete
one - after a couple of weeks.

I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other
location, leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping,
please call 07..... for access'?

You'd get done for TWOCing.

[Fredxx]

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Theo

Post by Jethro_uk
We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator
who had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left
it there for the duration of their customers trip abroad.
The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public
road for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to
make this a viable operation.
Although given some neighbourhoods (and we are at least 10 miles from
Birmingham airport) you might not find a car - or at least a complete
one - after a couple of weeks.

I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other
location, leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping,
please call 07..... for access'?

You'd get done for TWOCing.

I could simply say I thought the owner gave consent when they parked it
on my land?

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Theo

Post by Jethro_uk
We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator
who had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left
it there for the duration of their customers trip abroad.
The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public
road for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to
make this a viable operation.
Although given some neighbourhoods (and we are at least 10 miles from
Birmingham airport) you might not find a car - or at least a complete
one - after a couple of weeks.

I wonder what would happen were you to remove it to some other
location, leaving a note saying 'we removed your car for safe keeping,
please call 07..... for access'?

You'd get done for TWOCing.

I could simply say I thought the owner gave consent when they parked it
on my land?

If it's causing an obstruction which is preventing your own use of the road,
then you do have authority to move it so as to remove the obstruction. But
it can only be moved to the minimum extent which is strictly necessary to
re-establish your ability to use the road.

So, for example, if it was left in such a position as to completely block a
narrow, single-track road to other vehicles, you can move it. But if it's
merely parked on the side of a road where there's still room to pass, then
you can't.

Mark

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Fredxx
We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.
The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not stolen
or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do anything.

We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator who
had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left it there
for the duration of their customers trip abroad.
The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public road
for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to make this
a viable operation.

Well, I know of a neighbourhood that used to be blighted by a car
dealership with inadequate parking for its customers as well as its
stock, so every morning at opening the staff would clog up the
surrounding residential streets with at least a dozen of their cars.

I doubt that a builders' merchant would be allowed to "park" 20
pallets of bricks on the street all day, but it seems to be legal to
misuse a residential area for storing business stock if it consists of
cars.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Fredxx
We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.
The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not
stolen or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do
anything.

We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator who
had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left it
there for the duration of their customers trip abroad.
The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public
road for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to
make this a viable operation.

Well, I know of a neighbourhood that used to be blighted by a car
dealership with inadequate parking for its customers as well as its
stock, so every morning at opening the staff would clog up the
surrounding residential streets with at least a dozen of their cars.

As long as they are taxed and insured ...

Post by Adam Funk
I doubt that a builders' merchant would be allowed to "park" 20 pallets
of bricks on the street all day, but it seems to be legal to misuse a
residential area for storing business stock if it consists of cars.

I refer you to my previous comment.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Fredxx
We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.
The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not
stolen or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do
anything.

We had similar a couple of years ago. It was suggested by a colleague
(who had also experienced it) that it was a rogue parking operator who
had charged a few hundred pounds for "airport parking" and left it
there for the duration of their customers trip abroad.
The legalities and lawfulness and tax implications of using a public
road for commercial gain are presumably sufficiently ill defined to
make this a viable operation.

Well, I know of a neighbourhood that used to be blighted by a car
dealership with inadequate parking for its customers as well as its
stock, so every morning at opening the staff would clog up the
surrounding residential streets with at least a dozen of their cars.

As long as they are taxed and insured ...

Post by Adam Funk
I doubt that a builders' merchant would be allowed to "park" 20 pallets
of bricks on the street all day, but it seems to be legal to misuse a
residential area for storing business stock if it consists of cars.

I refer you to my previous comment.

Indeed!

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Fredxx
We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.
The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not stolen
or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do anything.
I am temped to put a sign on the car, yes with permission of the other
joint land owners/users, saying that there is now a PCN for £100 for any
parking on this road where permission has not bee granted by the other
road users.
How long must this sign be affixed to be valid? Either to a pole or the
windscreen.[1]

I don't think that would be enforceable retrospectively. If the driver of
the car didn't know, at the time he parked it, that there would be a charge
if he left it too long then there's no contract.

Given that the vehicle is trespassing, you can, so long as you are careful,
remove it from your property. But you must not damage it in any way when
doing so, you can't put it somewhere that the driver can't access it (ie,
you can't impound it) and you can't move it onto a location where parking is
prohibited (ie, you can't shift it onto double yellow lines). And you must
also give notice that the vehicle will be removed - which you can do by
fixing a notice to it.

Post by Fredxx
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?

In this particular case, unless the car stays there so long that the council
eventually agrees it must have been abandoned (in which case they will
remove it), I don't think you've got any reasonable option except to suck it
up. You could remove the vehicle, but you have to give reasonable notice
that it will be removed (15 days is the length of time that the council will
give if they decide to do it), so the chances are it will be gone by then
anyway. And if you do decide to remove it, then you would be very strongly
advised to get legal advice first and engage a professional tow company to
do it rather than taking DIY action. Which is all going to cost you money
that you are unlikely to get back.

In the long run, putting up signage stating that the road is a private road
and that parking charges will be levied on vehicles parked there is probably
the best solution.

Mark

[Fredxx]

On 03/10/2024 15:25, Mark Goodge wrote:

<snip>

Post by Mark Goodge
And you must
also give notice that the vehicle will be removed - which you can do by
fixing a notice to it.

How much notice? The vehicle is obstructing what would be a turning point.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?

In this particular case, unless the car stays there so long that the council
eventually agrees it must have been abandoned (in which case they will
remove it), I don't think you've got any reasonable option except to suck it
up. You could remove the vehicle, but you have to give reasonable notice
that it will be removed (15 days is the length of time that the council will
give if they decide to do it), so the chances are it will be gone by then
anyway. And if you do decide to remove it, then you would be very strongly
advised to get legal advice first and engage a professional tow company to
do it rather than taking DIY action. Which is all going to cost you money
that you are unlikely to get back.
In the long run, putting up signage stating that the road is a private road
and that parking charges will be levied on vehicles parked there is probably
the best solution.

Yes, it does seem that way.

Thanks for the insight. Like most laws with political pressures, they go
from one extreme to the other; where it was common place to clamp and
demand a release fee to parking where you like with impunity. (Apart
from supermarket car parks and the like).

[Norman Wells]

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Mark Goodge
And you must
also give notice that the vehicle will be removed - which you can do by
fixing a notice to it.

How much notice? The vehicle is obstructing what would be a turning point.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?

In this particular case, unless the car stays there so long that the council
eventually agrees it must have been abandoned (in which case they will
remove it), I don't think you've got any reasonable option except to suck it
up. You could remove the vehicle, but you have to give reasonable notice
that it will be removed (15 days is the length of time that the council will
give if they decide to do it), so the chances are it will be gone by then
anyway. And if you do decide to remove it, then you would be very strongly
advised to get legal advice first and engage a professional tow company to
do it rather than taking DIY action. Which is all going to cost you money
that you are unlikely to get back.
In the long run, putting up signage stating that the road is a private
road and that parking charges will be levied on vehicles parked there is
probably the best solution.

Yes, it does seem that way.

Actually, the best way is the usual solution, ie a lockable gate or
bollard, maybe with a combination lock, that can be operated only by
legitimate users.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Mark Goodge
And you must
also give notice that the vehicle will be removed - which you can do by
fixing a notice to it.

How much notice? The vehicle is obstructing what would be a turning point.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?

In this particular case, unless the car stays there so long that the council
eventually agrees it must have been abandoned (in which case they will
remove it), I don't think you've got any reasonable option except to suck it
up. You could remove the vehicle, but you have to give reasonable notice
that it will be removed (15 days is the length of time that the council will
give if they decide to do it), so the chances are it will be gone by then
anyway. And if you do decide to remove it, then you would be very strongly
advised to get legal advice first and engage a professional tow company to
do it rather than taking DIY action. Which is all going to cost you money
that you are unlikely to get back.
In the long run, putting up signage stating that the road is a private
road and that parking charges will be levied on vehicles parked there is
probably the best solution.

Yes, it does seem that way.

Actually, the best way is the usual solution, ie a lockable gate or
bollard, maybe with a combination lock, that can be operated only by
legitimate users.

Unless you have an automatic bollard, or a stay-at-home parking attendant, you
would get lynched in London traffic if you tried to get out of your car to
unlock a gate before driving in. Other car drivers resent people even slowing
down to turn into their drive.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Mark Goodge
And you must
also give notice that the vehicle will be removed - which you can do by
fixing a notice to it.

How much notice? The vehicle is obstructing what would be a turning point.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?

In this particular case, unless the car stays there so long that the council
eventually agrees it must have been abandoned (in which case they will
remove it), I don't think you've got any reasonable option except to suck it
up. You could remove the vehicle, but you have to give reasonable notice
that it will be removed (15 days is the length of time that the council will
give if they decide to do it), so the chances are it will be gone by then
anyway. And if you do decide to remove it, then you would be very strongly
advised to get legal advice first and engage a professional tow company to
do it rather than taking DIY action. Which is all going to cost you money
that you are unlikely to get back.
In the long run, putting up signage stating that the road is a private
road and that parking charges will be levied on vehicles parked there is
probably the best solution.

Yes, it does seem that way.

Actually, the best way is the usual solution, ie a lockable gate or
bollard, maybe with a combination lock, that can be operated only by
legitimate users.

Unless you have an automatic bollard, or a stay-at-home parking attendant, you
would get lynched in London traffic if you tried to get out of your car to
unlock a gate before driving in.

That depends how it's configured of course, but it wouldn't necessarily
or even usually be problem.

Post by Roger Hayter
Other car drivers resent people even slowing
down to turn into their drive.

Well, that's their problem.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

And you must also give notice that the vehicle will be removed -
which you can do by fixing a notice to it.

How much notice? The vehicle is obstructing what would be a turning point.

Post by Fredxx
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?

In this particular case, unless the car stays there so long that the
council eventually agrees it must have been abandoned (in which case
they will remove it), I don't think you've got any reasonable option
except to suck it up. You could remove the vehicle, but you have to
give reasonable notice that it will be removed (15 days is the length
of time that the council will give if they decide to do it), so the
chances are it will be gone by then anyway. And if you do decide to
remove it, then you would be very strongly advised to get legal
advice first and engage a professional tow company to do it rather
than taking DIY action. Which is all going to cost you money that you
are unlikely to get back.
In the long run, putting up signage stating that the road is a
private road and that parking charges will be levied on vehicles
parked there is probably the best solution.

Yes, it does seem that way.

Actually, the best way is the usual solution, ie a lockable gate or
bollard, maybe with a combination lock, that can be operated only by
legitimate users.

Unless you have an automatic bollard, or a stay-at-home parking
attendant, you would get lynched in London traffic if you tried to get
out of your car to unlock a gate before driving in. Other car drivers
resent people even slowing down to turn into their drive.

Automatic gates aren't that rare. Just pricey. (A diy solution may offset
that)

[Andy Burns]

Post by Jethro_uk
Automatic gates aren't that rare. Just pricey. (A diy solution may offset
that)

If DIY'ing make sure you comply with safety requirements

<https://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/powered-gates/safety.htm>

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter
Unless you have an automatic bollard, or a stay-at-home parking
attendant, you would get lynched in London traffic if you tried to get
out of your car to unlock a gate before driving in. Other car drivers
resent people even slowing down to turn into their drive.

Automatic gates aren't that rare. Just pricey. (A diy solution may offset
that)

Indeed. Anywhere "in London" which had a drive with gates, and was
sufficiently close to Central London, such as to cause hold ups in traffic,
would not only costs squillions, but could be almost guaranteed to have automatic
gates. And gates rather than bollards so as to deter any passing riff-raff
(As would be all too evident, when scanning the banks of CCTV monitors
in the basement)

Bollards both automatic and lockable would more likely be used in more
suburban areas, close to tube or railway stations. So as to deny access
to any open ground, to commuters.


bb

[Mark Goodge]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter
Unless you have an automatic bollard, or a stay-at-home parking
attendant, you would get lynched in London traffic if you tried to get
out of your car to unlock a gate before driving in. Other car drivers
resent people even slowing down to turn into their drive.

Automatic gates aren't that rare. Just pricey. (A diy solution may offset
that)

Indeed. Anywhere "in London" which had a drive with gates, and was
sufficiently close to Central London, such as to cause hold ups in traffic,
would not only costs squillions, but could be almost guaranteed to have automatic
gates. And gates rather than bollards so as to deter any passing riff-raff
(As would be all too evident, when scanning the banks of CCTV monitors
in the basement)
Bollards both automatic and lockable would more likely be used in more
suburban areas, close to tube or railway stations. So as to deny access
to any open ground, to commuters.

You also need planning permission to install gates on a driveway or access
road connecting to a classified (A or B) road. Which is likely to be refused
if the effect is such that a vehicle would need to wait on the highway for
the gates to be opened, rather than being able to drive straight in.

The usual solution is to set the gates back, so that there's a car's length
of driveway between the road and the gate. That way, the driver can get
fully off the road before stopping to open the gate. But that, of course,
requires a fairly long driveway to begin with, as you need enough space both
sides of the gate. And it may not deter the problem being discussed here,
because someone could always leave their vehicle on the part of the driveway
outside the gate.

Mark

[JNugent]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter
Unless you have an automatic bollard, or a stay-at-home parking
attendant, you would get lynched in London traffic if you tried to get
out of your car to unlock a gate before driving in. Other car drivers
resent people even slowing down to turn into their drive.

Automatic gates aren't that rare. Just pricey. (A diy solution may offset
that)

Indeed. Anywhere "in London" which had a drive with gates, and was
sufficiently close to Central London, such as to cause hold ups in traffic,
would not only costs squillions, but could be almost guaranteed to have automatic
gates. And gates rather than bollards so as to deter any passing riff-raff
(As would be all too evident, when scanning the banks of CCTV monitors
in the basement)
Bollards both automatic and lockable would more likely be used in more
suburban areas, close to tube or railway stations. So as to deny access
to any open ground, to commuters.

You also need planning permission to install gates on a driveway or access
road connecting to a classified (A or B) road. Which is likely to be refused
if the effect is such that a vehicle would need to wait on the highway for
the gates to be opened, rather than being able to drive straight in.
The usual solution is to set the gates back, so that there's a car's length
of driveway between the road and the gate. That way, the driver can get
fully off the road before stopping to open the gate. But that, of course,
requires a fairly long driveway to begin with, as you need enough space both
sides of the gate. And it may not deter the problem being discussed here,
because someone could always leave their vehicle on the part of the driveway
outside the gate.

Really?

I know of lots of houses fronting onto A-roads with large gates at the
boundary of the curtilage.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge
You also need planning permission to install gates on a driveway or access
road connecting to a classified (A or B) road. Which is likely to be refused
if the effect is such that a vehicle would need to wait on the highway for
the gates to be opened, rather than being able to drive straight in.
The usual solution is to set the gates back, so that there's a car's length
of driveway between the road and the gate. That way, the driver can get
fully off the road before stopping to open the gate. But that, of course,
requires a fairly long driveway to begin with, as you need enough space both
sides of the gate. And it may not deter the problem being discussed here,
because someone could always leave their vehicle on the part of the driveway
outside the gate.

Really?
I know of lots of houses fronting onto A-roads with large gates at the
boundary of the curtilage.

They may possibly have grandfather rights, having been there before the
current rules were put in place. Or they may be automated gates, which is
the other solution.

Mark

[Andy Burns]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge
The usual solution is to set the gates back, so that there's a
car's length of driveway between the road and the gate.

Really?

Yes really, it's a fairly typical planning requirement nodadays for 3m
from road (or path?) to gates.

Post by JNugent
I know of lots of houses fronting onto A-roads with large gates at the
boundary of the curtilage.

Built how long ago?

[JNugent]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge
The usual solution is to set the gates back, so that there's a
car's length of driveway between the road and the gate.

Really?

Yes really, it's a fairly typical planning requirement nodadays for 3m
from road (or path?) to gates.

Post by JNugent
I know of lots of houses fronting onto A-roads with large gates at the
boundary of the curtilage.

Built how long ago?

Along this road (which contains houses built a couple of hundreds of
years ago through to some being built right now), I know of at least two
recent builds (c. 10 years, at a guess) with wrought iron double gates
at the boundary of the curtilage and the footway (reached via dropped
kerbs).

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Mark Goodge
And you must
also give notice that the vehicle will be removed - which you can do by
fixing a notice to it.

How much notice? The vehicle is obstructing what would be a turning point.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?

In this particular case, unless the car stays there so long that the council
eventually agrees it must have been abandoned (in which case they will
remove it), I don't think you've got any reasonable option except to suck it
up. You could remove the vehicle, but you have to give reasonable notice
that it will be removed (15 days is the length of time that the council will
give if they decide to do it), so the chances are it will be gone by then
anyway. And if you do decide to remove it, then you would be very strongly
advised to get legal advice first and engage a professional tow company to
do it rather than taking DIY action. Which is all going to cost you money
that you are unlikely to get back.
In the long run, putting up signage stating that the road is a private road
and that parking charges will be levied on vehicles parked there is probably
the best solution.

Yes, it does seem that way.
Thanks for the insight. Like most laws with political pressures, they go
from one extreme to the other; where it was common place to clamp and
demand a release fee to parking where you like with impunity. (Apart
from supermarket car parks and the like).

It's quite ironic really; the set of the "world owes me a place to park"
brigade who protested so much about clamping that it was forbidden probably
overlaps very strongly with the "outraged by people parking on my stree/across
my drive/on my drive" group.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Mark Goodge
And you must
also give notice that the vehicle will be removed - which you can do by
fixing a notice to it.

How much notice? The vehicle is obstructing what would be a turning point.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?

In this particular case, unless the car stays there so long that the council
eventually agrees it must have been abandoned (in which case they will
remove it), I don't think you've got any reasonable option except to suck it
up. You could remove the vehicle, but you have to give reasonable notice
that it will be removed (15 days is the length of time that the council will
give if they decide to do it), so the chances are it will be gone by then
anyway. And if you do decide to remove it, then you would be very strongly
advised to get legal advice first and engage a professional tow company to
do it rather than taking DIY action. Which is all going to cost you money
that you are unlikely to get back.
In the long run, putting up signage stating that the road is a private road
and that parking charges will be levied on vehicles parked there is probably
the best solution.

Yes, it does seem that way.
Thanks for the insight. Like most laws with political pressures, they go
from one extreme to the other; where it was common place to clamp and
demand a release fee to parking where you like with impunity. (Apart
from supermarket car parks and the like).

It's quite ironic really; the set of the "world owes me a place to park"
brigade who protested so much about clamping that it was forbidden probably
overlaps very strongly with the "outraged by people parking on my stree/across
my drive/on my drive" group.

But what is unreasonable about protesting obstructive parking across a
driveway and what is unreasonable about expecting to be able to use a
non-obstructive parking space in a street where there is such space
available?

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter
It's quite ironic really; the set of the "world owes me a place to park"
brigade who protested so much about clamping that it was forbidden probably
overlaps very strongly with the "outraged by people parking on my stree/across
my drive/on my drive" group.

I'm not entirely sure that's true, actually. At least, I suspect there may
be a significant overlap between people who think that they have the right
to park anywhere and that they have sole right to the space in front of
their house. But that's because both of those beliefs are simply wrong, both
legally and morally, and people who hold one wrong belief about a particular
matter (eg, parking) are often more inclined to also hold other, related
wrong beliefs about the same matter.

I think, though, that most people would be upset at someone else parking on
their own property or in such a way as to block access to it (eg, by
obstructing the dropped kerb in front of their drive), even if they're not
the sort of person who routinely thinks they have a right to park anywhere
or that they own the space on the street in front of their house. And
they're justified in being upset, because both of those actions are
unlawful, albeit in different ways.

It's not a wrong belief to think that people shouldn't park on your drive or
blocking access to it, so there's no faulty thinking going on there. So
there's no reason why someone who holds a right belief in that respect
should be more inclined to hold a wrong belief in a different respect.

Mark

[JNugent]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
It's quite ironic really; the set of the "world owes me a place to park"
brigade who protested so much about clamping that it was forbidden probably
overlaps very strongly with the "outraged by people parking on my stree/across
my drive/on my drive" group.

I'm not entirely sure that's true, actually. At least, I suspect there may
be a significant overlap between people who think that they have the right
to park anywhere and that they have sole right to the space in front of
their house. But that's because both of those beliefs are simply wrong, both
legally and morally, and people who hold one wrong belief about a particular
matter (eg, parking) are often more inclined to also hold other, related
wrong beliefs about the same matter.
I think, though, that most people would be upset at someone else parking on
their own property or in such a way as to block access to it (eg, by
obstructing the dropped kerb in front of their drive), even if they're not
the sort of person who routinely thinks they have a right to park anywhere
or that they own the space on the street in front of their house. And
they're justified in being upset, because both of those actions are
unlawful, albeit in different ways.
It's not a wrong belief to think that people shouldn't park on your drive or
blocking access to it, so there's no faulty thinking going on there. So
there's no reason why someone who holds a right belief in that respect
should be more inclined to hold a wrong belief in a different respect.

I wonder whether there is actually anyone who honestly believes they do
have a right to park anywhere they like. Everyone is aware of yellow
lines, tow-away zones, etc. I don't believe that many people take the
view that none of that is necessary (provided that they are reasonably
applied and enforced).

The belief is rather that they *should* be allowed to park conveniently
for wherever their journey takes them. Whether they are so allowed is a
separate question.

For context, we are all aware that some places - meaning local
authorities and politicians - quite wilfully restrict the availability
of parking facilities, usually in the belief that they have some sort of
right to force citizens to "think of travelling" (ie, travel) by PT or
bicycle. Yes, there really *are* people as flakey as that (yes, I'm
looking at you, Bristol and Oxford).

[Jethro_uk]

Post by JNugent

[quoted text muted]

I wonder whether there is actually anyone who honestly believes they do
have a right to park anywhere they like.

Google "freeman of the land" ...

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent

[quoted text muted]

I wonder whether there is actually anyone who honestly believes they do
have a right to park anywhere they like.

Google "freeman of the land" ...

When I was working, I met a number of that movement's exponents,
professionally.

It can't be what was meant, because there aren't enough of them.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Mark Goodge
And you must
also give notice that the vehicle will be removed - which you can do by
fixing a notice to it.

How much notice? The vehicle is obstructing what would be a turning point.

15 days seems to be the rule of thumb used by local authorities.

If it's causing a significant obstruction to the use of the road, then you
can move it straight away, provided that you don't damage it when moving it,
and you don't move it any further than is absolutely necessary to mitigate
the obstruction.

Mark

[GB]

Post by Fredxx
We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.
The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not stolen
or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do anything.
I am temped to put a sign on the car, yes with permission of the other
joint land owners/users, saying that there is now a PCN for £100 for any
parking on this road where permission has not bee granted by the other
road users.

Can you retrospectively do this at all, though?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Fredxx
We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.
The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not stolen
or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do anything.
I am temped to put a sign on the car, yes with permission of the other
joint land owners/users, saying that there is now a PCN for £100 for any
parking on this road where permission has not bee granted by the other
road users.
How long must this sign be affixed to be valid? Either to a pole or the
windscreen.[1]
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?
[1] I am aware this could count as criminal damage, but then would a car
parked on private property also be construed as criminal damage?

Parking on private property, eg a pub or supermarket car park or a
private road, is a matter of contract. The terms must be clearly
displayed at the time of parking which is when the contract is entered
into. You cannot subsequently dictate terms unilaterally like you propose.

Unauthorised parking on a private road is a trespass, and your legal
remedy is to sue the driver for that. However, as it would not
necessarily have been clear to the driver that it is private, he has
done nothing wrong, and you are unlikely to achieve anything that way
unless it is causing an obstruction, which the police's lack of interest
would indicate it isn't.

If you put up clear signage about car parking charges, this will apply
immediately to anyone subsequently parking there. But it's again a
civil matter and you'd have to take it to court if the driver doesn't
pay up.

You should note that it is illegal to immobilise, move, or restrict the
movement of a vehicle on private land without the owner's permission, so
you can't clamp it, tow it away or lock it in.

The cards are stacked against you. All you can do is wait for the owner
to remove it himself.

[Jeff Layman]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.
The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not stolen
or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do anything.
I am temped to put a sign on the car, yes with permission of the other
joint land owners/users, saying that there is now a PCN for £100 for any
parking on this road where permission has not bee granted by the other
road users.
How long must this sign be affixed to be valid? Either to a pole or the
windscreen.[1]
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?
[1] I am aware this could count as criminal damage, but then would a car
parked on private property also be construed as criminal damage?

Parking on private property, eg a pub or supermarket car park or a
private road, is a matter of contract. The terms must be clearly
displayed at the time of parking which is when the contract is entered
into. You cannot subsequently dictate terms unilaterally like you propose.
Unauthorised parking on a private road is a trespass, and your legal
remedy is to sue the driver for that. However, as it would not
necessarily have been clear to the driver that it is private, he has
done nothing wrong, and you are unlikely to achieve anything that way
unless it is causing an obstruction, which the police's lack of interest
would indicate it isn't.

So anybody can park on the driveway of my house if they don't cause an
obstruction?

Post by Norman Wells
If you put up clear signage about car parking charges, this will apply
immediately to anyone subsequently parking there. But it's again a
civil matter and you'd have to take it to court if the driver doesn't
pay up.
You should note that it is illegal to immobilise, move, or restrict the
movement of a vehicle on private land without the owner's permission, so
you can't clamp it, tow it away or lock it in.

With respect to my comment above, it would appear to be a law of
unintended consequences.

Post by Norman Wells
The cards are stacked against you. All you can do is wait for the owner
to remove it himself.

:-(

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jeff Layman

[quoted text muted]

So anybody can park on the driveway of my house if they don't cause an
obstruction?

It's not so much that. It's just you have no lawful recourse to enforce a
charge to remove it.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by Norman Wells
Parking on private property, eg a pub or supermarket car park or a
private road, is a matter of contract.  The terms must be clearly
displayed at the time of parking which is when the contract is entered
into.  You cannot subsequently dictate terms unilaterally like you
propose.
Unauthorised parking on a private road is a trespass, and your legal
remedy is to sue the driver for that.  However, as it would not
necessarily have been clear to the driver that it is private, he has
done nothing wrong, and you are unlikely to achieve anything that way
unless it is causing an obstruction, which the police's lack of interest
would indicate it isn't.

So anybody can park on the driveway of my house if they don't cause an
obstruction?

It happens sometimes, and there's actually little legal redress:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/parking-on-someone-elses-driveway/

[Jeff Layman]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jeff Layman
So anybody can park on the driveway of my house if they don't cause an
obstruction?

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/parking-on-someone-elses-driveway/

Interesting and disappointing. It seems to me that one of our fine(?)
new MPs could make themselves popular by introducing a private member's
bill to amend the law in this respect. I wonder how many other areas of
the law seem to favour the offender rather than those offended against.

[JNugent]

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
We have a car parked on private ground, that is a private road. It may
not have been obvious to the driver that this is a private road.
The car has been parked in this spot for over 10 days. It is Taxed,
MOT'd and insured. The police have been informed but as it's not stolen
or reported in any way and so legal they aren't going to do anything.
I am temped to put a sign on the car, yes with permission of the other
joint land owners/users, saying that there is now a PCN for £100 for any
parking on this road where permission has not bee granted by the other
road users.
How long must this sign be affixed to be valid? Either to a pole or the
windscreen.[1]
Anyhow, what's the best way to proceed?
[1] I am aware this could count as criminal damage, but then would a car
parked on private property also be construed as criminal damage?

Parking on private property, eg a pub or supermarket car park or a
private road, is a matter of contract.  The terms must be clearly
displayed at the time of parking which is when the contract is entered
into.  You cannot subsequently dictate terms unilaterally like you
propose.
Unauthorised parking on a private road is a trespass, and your legal
remedy is to sue the driver for that.  However, as it would not
necessarily have been clear to the driver that it is private, he has
done nothing wrong, and you are unlikely to achieve anything that way
unless it is causing an obstruction, which the police's lack of interest
would indicate it isn't.

So anybody can park on the driveway of my house if they don't cause an
obstruction?

They would be trespassing.

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by Norman Wells
If you put up clear signage about car parking charges, this will apply
immediately to anyone subsequently parking there.  But it's again a
civil matter and you'd have to take it to court if the driver doesn't
pay up.
You should note that it is illegal to immobilise, move, or restrict the
movement of a vehicle on private land without the owner's permission, so
you can't clamp it, tow it away or lock it in.

With respect to my comment above, it would appear to be a law of
unintended consequences.

Post by Norman Wells
The cards are stacked against you.  All you can do is wait for the owner
to remove it himself.

:-(