PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking on a private driveway without permission
Korting
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 16:29
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,127
Joined: 13 May 2010
Member No.: 37,524



Today, my friend went to leave her house and found a large van had parked on her driveway. She didn't need her car but she wouldn't have been able to get it out because of the way the van was parked.

The driver of the van did not have and certainly did not ask permission to park on the drive.

So what can one do if faced with this situation?

You cant clamp it, you cant get inside it or break into it to release the handbrake. It is I understand to glue a notice to the windscreen.

So what can one legally do?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 16:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nigelbb
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 06:27
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,337
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 22:38) *
But what would happen if you then blocked them in with another car?
Offence under the Protection of Freedoms Act

Hasn't the driver of the van already committed the same offence? AFAIK there has never been a prosecution under this section & I foresee difficulties in getting the police involved with parking on private land which is unfortunate as threat of a prosecution under Section 54 of POFA 2012 appears to be one remedy for the OP's friend who has been blocked in.

Here is the relevant section of POFA. Incidentally can anyone an explanation of what 54 (4) is intended to cover?

QUOTE
54 Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

(2)The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3)But, where the restriction of the movement of the vehicle is by means of a fixed barrier and the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked, any express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of the driver of the vehicle to the restriction is, for the purposes of subsection (1), lawful authority for the restriction.

(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6)In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 06:49
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,827
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Even if acquitted, defending a prosecution for criminal damage could involve considerable cost (which is unlikely to be fully reimbursable), stress and hassle, so should not be undertaken as a first resort, nor without careful consideration of both the alternatives and the risks associated with adopting a 'self-help solution'.

Otherwise known as the Innocent Tax
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/dec/27...e-rule-law-cuts

I wish more MPs would feel the consequences of their own decisions
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/dec/27...-legal-aid-cuts
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:00
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,447
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 06:27) *
.........Here is the relevant section of POFA. Incidentally can anyone an explanation of what 54 (4) is intended to cover?
……..(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.
………..



So if someone parks on my driveway blocking my vehicle in, I can clamp them or otherwise restrict their ability to remove their vehicle without fear of being convicted under POFA???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:19
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,097
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:00) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 06:27) *
.........Here is the relevant section of POFA. Incidentally can anyone an explanation of what 54 (4) is intended to cover?
……..(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.
………..



So if someone parks on my driveway blocking my vehicle in, I can clamp them or otherwise restrict their ability to remove their vehicle without fear of being convicted under POFA???



Maybe it's designed to allow an owner (keeper) to use a clamp as an anti-theft device?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:45
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,337
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 12:19) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:00) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 06:27) *
.........Here is the relevant section of POFA. Incidentally can anyone an explanation of what 54 (4) is intended to cover?
……..(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.
………..



So if someone parks on my driveway blocking my vehicle in, I can clamp them or otherwise restrict their ability to remove their vehicle without fear of being convicted under POFA???



Maybe it's designed to allow an owner (keeper) to use a clamp as an anti-theft device?

Possibly that’s what it’s intended to convey but I’m not sure why it needs to be stated as surely anything the driver or owner may do is covered by 54.1 & having legal authority


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:49
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,097
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:45) *
QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 12:19) *
. . . .

Maybe it's designed to allow an owner (keeper) to use a clamp as an anti-theft device?

Possibly that’s what it’s intended to convey but I’m not sure why it needs to be stated as surely anything the driver or owner may do is covered by 54.1 & having legal authority


I suspect that, in reality, it's to cover being clamped by "If You Don't Pay, We'll Take It Away" & Son Ltd.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:59
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,197
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:45) *
QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 12:19) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:00) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 06:27) *
.........Here is the relevant section of POFA. Incidentally can anyone an explanation of what 54 (4) is intended to cover?
……..(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.
………..



So if someone parks on my driveway blocking my vehicle in, I can clamp them or otherwise restrict their ability to remove their vehicle without fear of being convicted under POFA???



Maybe it's designed to allow an owner (keeper) to use a clamp as an anti-theft device?

Possibly that’s what it’s intended to convey but I’m not sure why it needs to be stated as surely anything the driver or owner may do is covered by 54.1 & having legal authority

The Explanatory Note says: Subsection (4) contains an exception so that anyone entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit the subsection (1) offence in respect of that vehicle. This would apply where the owner of a vehicle retrieves a vehicle being used by another person (for example, a car hire company recovering an unreturned vehicle in respect of which the car hire agreement had expired).


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 18:32
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,441
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 06:27) *
Hasn't the driver of the van already committed the same offence? AFAIK there has never been a prosecution under this section & I foresee difficulties in getting the police involved with parking on private land which is unfortunate as threat of a prosecution under Section 54 of POFA 2012 appears to be one remedy for the OP's friend who has been blocked in.

This is one of the few items of recent legislation for which a private prosecution would be relatively straightforward, and providing you put a decent case together (i.e. evidencial threshold met) it's unlikely the CPS would want to intervene in what is effectively a private dispute.

QUOTE (nigelbb @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 18:50) *
If the OP's friend needed t get the car out to go to work then the options would be to use a taxi then sue the van driver or to smash a window & release the handbrake to move the van back out onto the street. In the latter case they would need to be prepared for repercussions & to use the common law defence of necessity if charged with criminal damage.

I would suggest dragging or pushing the car out of the way would be far more proportionate than smashing the window.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 22:46
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,827
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 11:00) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 06:27) *
.........Here is the relevant section of POFA. Incidentally can anyone an explanation of what 54 (4) is intended to cover?
……..(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.
………..


So if someone parks on my driveway blocking my vehicle in, I can clamp them or otherwise restrict their ability to remove their vehicle without fear of being convicted under POFA???

You can only immobilise the vehicle using the method that was visible when it arrived

In other words, if there is a barrier or gate, you can shut and lock it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 22:08
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68(1):
QUOTE
A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect
...
(b) of obstructing that activity


So presumably if you intended to prevent someone from using their own drive, then you might be guilty.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 11:12
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 157
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



My drive has space for two cars head to tail.

Sometimes we arrive home to find that some Herbert, 'just popping into the bank', in the far bay.
So not blocking MY access from drive to highway. So the police won't want to know.

To which we park in front of the car blocking its exit. (It would be impossible to park on my drive without doing so)

The best result (for the driver) is that s/he has to do the walk of shame and knock and apologise and ask if we could move car.

However if we were planning on going for a walk for a couple of hours, then we still would do so.

Morally I don't think I should be inconvenienced by some others party's unauthorised presence on my property.
I'm hardly expected to park on yellow lines, or pay to park in a car park until he returns... am I?

I suspect that this is "obstructing" this vehicle, and this is not legal. Can someone confirm?

What else am I supposed to do? Wait in all day? Use a car park and sue him for the £2.50 in small claims court?

It has crossed my mind that I could cover myself with a sign, to say that access is required 24 hours and anyone parking may be blocked in.
But who wants to do that on your house? And would that make any difference anyway?

Does putting a note "back in 2 hours" on the windscreen make any difference? (To show reasonableness)







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 15:56
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,239
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



How about a "Donate Your Vehicle Here" sign?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobthesod
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 16:51
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 123
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,755



1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

Surely the word INTENDING is the get out clause

Case 1 rosturra had deliberately blocked a car in . I think the man on theClapham omnibus would call that intending as he could see what he was blocking in

Case 2 rosturra parks in front of a garage that 'appears' nor to be in use Howevwr there is a car in there that the owner requires to get out due to a pre booked MOT. I thin kthe same bus passenger would satrosturra did not intentionally block the car in as he had no knowledge of what was behind the closed door HOWEVER he might call him some choice words on the lack of foresight that it MIGHT be in use and egress from it

just my 2d worth

The problem is it doesn't clarify who is an 'authorised' person to remove it

This post has been edited by bobthesod: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 16:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 22:11
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,239
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (bobthesod @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 16:51) *
1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

Surely the word INTENDING is the get out clause

Case 1 rosturra had deliberately blocked a car in . I think the man on theClapham omnibus would call that intending as he could see what he was blocking in

If the landowner had a pre-existing right to park in his own drive ("lawful authority", perhaps?), applying POFA in the way you suggest would perversely deprive him of that right whenever a trespasser decided to park there. Another way to interpret the word "intending" would be to read it in the context of the rest of POFA: a landowner would only be "intending" to prevent/inhibit removal of the vehicle if he were intending to hold the vehicle ransom in exchange for payment of a £100 release fee.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 22:29
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,441
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (rosturra @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 11:12) *
Morally I don't think I should be inconvenienced by some others party's unauthorised presence on my property.
I'm hardly expected to park on yellow lines

No, the fact that someone has parked on your drive would be no grounds to challenge a council PCN

QUOTE (rosturra @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 11:12) *
or pay to park in a car park until he returns... am I?

You could do that and sue him for the money, but it would be tricky to prove who the driver was.

QUOTE (rosturra @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 11:12) *
I suspect that this is "obstructing" this vehicle, and this is not legal. Can someone confirm?

No it's "immobilising" but I highly doubt the police would take it up. As long as you allow him to leave without demanding a "release fee", they're never going to get involved. The driver could prosecute you himself, but I suspect less than 1% of the population would even know how to go about it.

QUOTE (rosturra @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 11:12) *
What else am I supposed to do? Wait in all day? Use a car park and sue him for the £2.50 in small claims court?

You could sue him for the cost of the car park but you would have to prove who was driving, which might be tricky.

QUOTE (rosturra @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 11:12) *
It has crossed my mind that I could cover myself with a sign, to say that access is required 24 hours and anyone parking may be blocked in.
But who wants to do that on your house? And would that make any difference anyway?

Such a sign would make no difference, as the consent of the trespasser is not lawful authority for the purposes of section 54 POFA. You could put a sign up saying people can park there for a £100 charge, and if you follow the POFA rules correctly, as I understand it, you could hold the registered keeper liable (DVLA will give you the RK details if you provide photos of the car parked on your property) which eliminates the need to identify the driver.

QUOTE (rosturra @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 11:12) *
Does putting a note "back in 2 hours" on the windscreen make any difference? (To show reasonableness)

No as it's a strict liability offence, reasonableness doesn't come into it.

To be honest, a much more pragmatic solution is provided here: https://www.toolstation.com/3-leg-parking-barrier/p28219, the best way to deal with someone trespassing on your land is to stop them form getting in in the first place.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 09:04
Post #36


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,471
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



"How would you feel if some ar53hole parked on your driveway?" used to be the go to line for every lowlife PPC troll, seeking to equate a scrap of land used for extorting motorists with a private driveway.

Whilst businesses perhaps ought to be expected to take reasonable steps to protect their land, many would find the idea of suggesting that individuals ought to install and use barriers in their own driveways, to deter said ar53holes, to be somewhat offensive.

If some ar53hole had parked on my own private driveway and I parked behind him, my intention in so doing would ostensibly be to park in my own private driveway without going to the trouble of dragging his car out of my private driveway. If he had any expectation that I would be moving my car for his convenience (as opposed to when I wanted to move it), I would suggest that he would be somewhat delusional.


--------------------
Andy

If you're going to try to contradict me, please at least try to get your facts straight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 13:07
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,441
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 09:04) *
"How would you feel if some ar53hole parked on your driveway?" used to be the go to line for every lowlife PPC troll, seeking to equate a scrap of land used for extorting motorists with a private driveway.

Whilst businesses perhaps ought to be expected to take reasonable steps to protect their land, many would find the idea of suggesting that individuals ought to install and use barriers in their own driveways, to deter said ar53holes, to be somewhat offensive.

If some ar53hole had parked on my own private driveway and I parked behind him, my intention in so doing would ostensibly be to park in my own private driveway without going to the trouble of dragging his car out of my private driveway. If he had any expectation that I would be moving my car for his convenience (as opposed to when I wanted to move it), I would suggest that he would be somewhat delusional.

Still, there is no private driveway defence to section 54 and if the ar53hole concerned initiates criminal proceedings against you, you'd be relying on the discretion of the CPS to take over and discontinue the prosecution on public interest grounds. While clearly they should discontinue in this scenario, it's best practice not to rely on the CPS for anything.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 14:45
Post #38


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,471
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 13:07) *
Still, there is no private driveway defence to section 54 and if the ar53hole concerned initiates criminal proceedings against you, you'd be relying on the discretion of the CPS to take over and discontinue the prosecution on public interest grounds. While clearly they should discontinue in this scenario, it's best practice not to rely on the CPS for anything.


As no offence would have been committed, I do not find the apparent lack of an applicable defence to be overly troubling.


--------------------
Andy

If you're going to try to contradict me, please at least try to get your facts straight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 15:00
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,337
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 10:04) *
Whilst businesses perhaps ought to be expected to take reasonable steps to protect their land, many would find the idea of suggesting that individuals ought to install and use barriers in their own driveways, to deter said ar53holes, to be somewhat offensive.

Aren't those barriers called gates? They seem pretty common on driveways so many people obviously don't seem to find the idea offensive.

Incidentally re-reading Section 54 of POFA 2012 I see that it's not restricted to motor vehicles & that if someone parks their caravan on your driveway that towing it off is an offence.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 15:20
Post #40


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,471
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 15:00) *
Incidentally re-reading Section 54 of POFA 2012 I see that it's not restricted to motor vehicles & that if someone parks their caravan on your driveway that towing it off is an offence.


Only if the intention is to immobilise. Towing itself is not an offence under s. 54

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 15:21


--------------------
Andy

If you're going to try to contradict me, please at least try to get your facts straight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 20th February 2019 - 14:29
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.