PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Can a car park be a public highway?
soggi
post Wed, 27 Sep 2017 - 16:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 157
Joined: 10 Dec 2016
Member No.: 89,005



Ok town has a dogs must be on leads rule in all 'roads' in town, road isdefined as a public highway with right of passage for vehicles. Car park has off street order and is managed by borough, roads are enforced by county. Friend got ticket for having dog off lead in the car park. We have stated its not a road and is not highway as it can be closed and it has terms and conditions of entry ie no lorries. Council are saying it is covered as the car park is adopted highway, are they talking cr@p as I suspect? I know its a public place etc if you are drink driving but surely its not a public highway?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 5)
Advertisement
post Wed, 27 Sep 2017 - 16:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
bama
post Wed, 27 Sep 2017 - 17:47
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,855
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



Clarke
http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/A%20road%20i...arke%20case.pdf


This post has been edited by bama: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 - 17:47


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Wed, 27 Sep 2017 - 18:01
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,092
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



I don't suppose the Council has put a PSPO in place banning off lead dogs?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 28 Sep 2017 - 13:59
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37,609
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (bama @ Wed, 27 Sep 2017 - 18:47) *

As that related to the usage of the wording in that particular act I'm not sure it's relevant, not least that it's defining a 'road' as opposed to a 'public highway' as used in this legislation. That said section 192 of the 1988 act states "means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes" so clearly all highways are roads, but not all roads are highways, then you have to separate public from 'non-public' highways.



--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 1 Oct 2017 - 09:11
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,748
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



This one might help:-

http://www.1itl.com/news/284/

IMO the "public place" bit has to have more prominence in the consideration of the OP's case.

The Kato case is perhaps not so slam dunk judging by "A car park is not a road - Clarke v Kato [1998] 1 WLR 1647. However, it is a public place within S192 and so otherwise included".

I do note that the famous Dawood parking case, which resulted in lots of penalties for a scooter parked on the pavement which the appellant owned, might have been solved with a 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' sign which was held to be a sufficient prohibition to members of the public to exclude the location from S192 1988 - R v Beaumont [1964] Crim LR 665.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 1 Oct 2017 - 09:41
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,937
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 1 Oct 2017 - 10:11) *
......I do note that the famous Dawood parking case, which resulted in lots of penalties for a scooter parked on the pavement which the appellant owned, might have been solved with a 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' sign which was held to be a sufficient prohibition to members of the public to exclude the location from S192 1988 - R v Beaumont [1964] Crim LR 665.

Mick


Dawood was that there was no obvious difference between the public and privately owned sections of the footway, to all intents and purposes it was one footway.
I doubt a sign would have made much difference though some councils do accept "on footway" parking against a demarcation line.
Had the Doctor been able to install a few bollards on his border (which covenants may have prevented) he would likely have been fireproof.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 - 09:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Sunday, 25th February 2018 - 21:56
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.