PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

More Kent hypocrisy
roythebus
post Thu, 18 Feb 2021 - 14:47
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,675
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



The hypocrisy of Ashford District Council never ceases to amaze me. The local transport cafe on the A20 applied for a late licence to open during the evenings as a sit-down fish and chip restaurant. He owns a stretch of roadside that looks like a lay-by but is unsurfaced. The council turned down the application unless he spent a fortune surfacing his car park aka lay-by.

Recently Ashford District Council has been issuing penalty charge notices and wheel clamps on lorries parked on the cafe's lay-by/car park for breaching overnight parking bans even though in my opinion they have no right to do this on private property.

Today we called in for a take-away and noticed a huge pile of earth and hard core in his lay-by, thinking this was part of his plan to improve the surface. But no, somebody fly-tipped it there. So will Ashford District Council come and clear up the fly-tipping? No of course not, it's not their property. Why on earth do they then have the audacity to issue lorries parked on private land parking tickets and wheel clamps?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Thu, 18 Feb 2021 - 14:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 18 Feb 2021 - 21:59
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,031
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Wasn't there a case in Camden which went to the court of appeal which found that parking restrictions still apply to private land which has public access?

Amazed it is still serviceable though if used for lorries and is unsurfaced. Council here have gone around coning off "unofficial" laybys after a lorry slid down a verge on one which had been churned up.


--------------------
Scores on doors

Me 1 - 0 Avon & Somerset
Me 1 - 1 Thames Valley
Me 1 - 0 Oxford University Hospitals/Trethowans (parking)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Thu, 18 Feb 2021 - 22:23
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,675
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Yes, ISTR there was a case in Soho or thereabouts with the chat chap who parked his moped on his own ground. If he'd put a chain along the edge of his property then it wasn't deemed accessible to the public.

But in this case the council seem to want it both ways in their favour. If they park there' it's ours; if they fly-tip it's yours.

This post has been edited by roythebus: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 - 22:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 19 Feb 2021 - 10:30
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,121
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (roythebus @ Thu, 18 Feb 2021 - 14:47) *
Recently Ashford District Council has been issuing penalty charge notices and wheel clamps on lorries parked on the cafe's lay-by/car park for breaching overnight parking bans even though in my opinion they have no right to do this on private property.

He could sue the council for trespass, it sounds to me like they're going onto his land and harassing his customers. He could (depending on the strength of his evidence) also pursue civil or criminal charges for harassment. If he wants a hand with any of that you can put him in touch with me.


--------------------
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.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Fri, 19 Feb 2021 - 19:35
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,675
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Thanks, I'll let him know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phantomcrusader
post Sat, 20 Feb 2021 - 02:02
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 27 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,840



To issue PCN's the council must consider the location to be part of the public highway. Public highway can be private property though. The council needs to be challenged on whether the location is legally considered by them to be public highway or not and further challenged on whether the lay-by is maintainable at public expense or not. The cafe owner needs to know if his land officially forms part of the public highway or not and who is responsible for the upkeep. If the council do consider the private land to be part of the public highway, the cafe owner should ask the council what would it take to disassociate the land from being public highway. It may only take the erection of some signs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 20 Feb 2021 - 09:23
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,121
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (phantomcrusader @ Sat, 20 Feb 2021 - 02:02) *
To issue PCN's the council must consider the location to be part of the public highway. Public highway can be private property though. The council needs to be challenged on whether the location is legally considered by them to be public highway or not and further challenged on whether the lay-by is maintainable at public expense or not. The cafe owner needs to know if his land officially forms part of the public highway or not and who is responsible for the upkeep. If the council do consider the private land to be part of the public highway, the cafe owner should ask the council what would it take to disassociate the land from being public highway. It may only take the erection of some signs.

It doesn't work like that, to stop public highway from being public highway you'd need a stopping-up order. Of course if you take the view that land was never public highway in the first place, the landowner would be entitled to fence off the land. Signs alone would never suffice.


--------------------
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.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 01:58
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,031
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



For those finding the thread by Google

In the UK it is very rare the highways authority owns the land the roads are routed on, with some exceptions like motorways, new housing estates etc.

Instead landowners typically own the land up until the centre of the road. However, at some point a highway boundary is determined, beyond which you have fewer rights unless an order is made to extinguish the rights of those using it as a highway.

This is why it is common to see various iterations of signs on large sites stating that the roads are private and not highways, even if the public has general access. This allows the landowner to close roads, reroute them etc without needing permission

As such, if you allow an area of your land to be used in such a way that is is considered part of the highway, you risk losing rights over that land.


--------------------
Scores on doors

Me 1 - 0 Avon & Somerset
Me 1 - 1 Thames Valley
Me 1 - 0 Oxford University Hospitals/Trethowans (parking)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Korting
post Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 13:11
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 13 May 2010
Member No.: 37,524



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 18 Feb 2021 - 21:59) *
Wasn't there a case in Camden which went to the court of appeal which found that parking restrictions still apply to private land which has public access?


Does that mean that I could be ticketed for parking on my drive in front of my house, because there is no wall and because there's nothing to stop the public from walking on to it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 13:37
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,121
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Korting @ Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 13:11) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 18 Feb 2021 - 21:59) *
Wasn't there a case in Camden which went to the court of appeal which found that parking restrictions still apply to private land which has public access?


Does that mean that I could be ticketed for parking on my drive in front of my house, because there is no wall and because there's nothing to stop the public from walking on to it?

Not in most cases as members of the public would not "pass and re-pass" along your drive. If however your drive were on a junction and members of the public started cutting through your drive as a short-cut rather than following the pavement outside, because you hadn't fenced it off or put any barriers or signs in place, over time this could lead to the conclusion that you have dedicated the land as a public right of way. But again signs alone might not suffice, you'd want to put a physical barrier in place at least one day a year.


--------------------
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.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Tue, 23 Feb 2021 - 01:28
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,031
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



With the Camden case the scooter was parked both on an area that could reasonably be mistaken for the pavement, as was very likely used by a pavement by passers by.



A more practical person would have put a fence or similar clear demarcation between the pavement and private land. But from experience, practical and pragmaticism are not key qualities of doctors.


--------------------
Scores on doors

Me 1 - 0 Avon & Somerset
Me 1 - 1 Thames Valley
Me 1 - 0 Oxford University Hospitals/Trethowans (parking)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 23 Feb 2021 - 09:26
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,121
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 23 Feb 2021 - 01:28) *
A more practical person would have put a fence or similar clear demarcation between the pavement and private land.

+1


--------------------
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.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
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: Thursday, 4th March 2021 - 03:20
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.