Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Does The 'road Traffic Act' Cover Unadopted Roads?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
marc54rg
Hi, im new and have been reffered here from another forum. Anyway, as above, if anyone can help at all would be much appreciated. Thanks
andy_foster
Which part of which road traffic act?
Cargy
This is something that one of our members is in dispute with the DVLA about at the moment in terms of parking a SORNed vehicle. Can't direct you to the thread though cos it's in a members only section.

Essentially for the purposes of that it appears to hinge on whether the road is "maintained at public expense", records of which should be available via the relevant council.

For traffic and other offences, I think there is a much broader definition, covering areas where there is general usage by the public (such as a Supermarket car park for example). Indeed we had a recent thread where a guy was given an FPN for having show plates in a Tesco car park.

If you can be more specific about the nature of your "problem", then the site experts (of whom I'm not one!) will be able to guide you with more accuracy.
fatboytim
Cargy,
As Andy says, it depends on what part of the RTA and what offence was allegedly committed.

The defenition of Road is "Highway or other road to which the public have access", there is a quote from an earlier case in Kato, Clarke..Eagle Star, which says
"As the Lord Justice-General (Clyde) observed in Harrison v. Hill 1932 J.C. 13, 16:

"There must be, as matter of fact, walking or driving by the public on the road, and such walking or driving must be lawfully performed--that is to say, must be permitted or allowed, either expressly or implicitly, by the person or persons to whom the road belongs."

Lord Sands observed in the same case at p. 17:

"Any road may be regarded as a road to which the public have access upon which members of the public are to be found who have not obtained access either by overcoming a physical obstruction or in defiance of prohibition express or implied."

Secondly, the public in this context means the general public. To quote again from the opinion of the Lord Justice-General in Harrison v. Hill at p. 16

"I think that, when the statute speaks of 'the public' in this connection, what is meant is the public generally, and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go the farmhouse or to any part of the farm itself; were it otherwise, the definition might just as well have included all private roads as well as all public highways."

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?d...;method=boolean


However if the offence can be committed on a road or other public place, different definitions apply, If I understand correctly.

fatboytim
Cargy
Well, there you go; a far more accurate definition by FBT who, believe me, has more than some idea of what he's talking about.

Carl
patdavies
However, for MoT, VED and SORN, the applicable act is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 - not the RTA.

For these, VERA has a specific definition of a public road within the Act as "a road maintained at public expense". So for SORN, you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense
Bluedart
QUOTE (patdavies @ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 - 23:21) *
However, for MoT, VED and SORN, the applicable act is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 - not the RTA.

For these, VERA has a specific definition of a public road within the Act as "a road maintained at public expense". So for SORN, you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

QUOTE
you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

And how would you do that?
patdavies
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Fri, 15 Aug 2008 - 08:28) *
QUOTE (patdavies @ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 - 23:21) *
However, for MoT, VED and SORN, the applicable act is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 - not the RTA.

For these, VERA has a specific definition of a public road within the Act as "a road maintained at public expense". So for SORN, you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

QUOTE
you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

And how would you do that?


I would suggest a letter from the Highway Authority (usually County Council) stating that the road is not within their ambit.
cjard
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Fri, 15 Aug 2008 - 08:28) *
And how would you do that?



The council will know whether they are responsible for maintaining a road and should have no reason to withold that info. Additionally, you can ask united utilities if they are responsible for the drains thereunder. I seem to recall from my last chat with a building inspector that the council are reluctant to adopt a road if the drains are not adopted. This is, however, hearsay
Bluedart
QUOTE (patdavies @ Fri, 15 Aug 2008 - 08:39) *
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Fri, 15 Aug 2008 - 08:28) *
QUOTE (patdavies @ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 - 23:21) *
However, for MoT, VED and SORN, the applicable act is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 - not the RTA.

For these, VERA has a specific definition of a public road within the Act as "a road maintained at public expense". So for SORN, you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

QUOTE
you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

And how would you do that?


I would suggest a letter from the Highway Authority (usually County Council) stating that the road is not within their ambit.


I am in dispute, I am going to court for that very reason to try and show the mags that it is not maintained nor has it ever been maintained at public expense.
County have only provided me with a map. They have no evidence of when they adopted the road.
The map is coloured in brown (looks like crayon) showing what they maitain at public expense.
That is what is in dispute. There are parts of the map not coloured in brown, but are maintained at public expense, (road sweeper has been known to sweep it) But the land that I am disputing, has no covering apart from a layer of loose chippings and has never had any maintenance.
I am looking for other evidence of how they maintain it? Surely just saying that they do without proving evidence that they have is not good enough, is it?
I have evidence from the Land Registry which shows it is unregistered land.
I am now hoping to go through the process (obtained details of how to go about it only yesterday) of registering this piece of land myself.
Whether I can or can't remains to be seen, but I have to give it a go.
cjard
Plenty of links about road adoption:
http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/transport_...motor/adoption/

An application must be made to the council for them to consider adopting the road, and the road has to be to council spec w.r.t all the furniture and services. Record will be available of when all this happened.


I wouldnt class seeing one guy in his sweeper evidence that a road has been adopted; having worked on the council teams (refuse collection actually) I can confirm that driving a sweeper isnt the most difficult task in the world, and could certainly be done by someone who couldnt tell the difference between an unadopted and an adopted road, or read a map. "If it's black and you can drive on it, sweep it"
"Uhhhh. Okay"
Jimzzr
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Fri, 15 Aug 2008 - 08:28) *
QUOTE (patdavies @ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 - 23:21) *
However, for MoT, VED and SORN, the applicable act is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 - not the RTA.

For these, VERA has a specific definition of a public road within the Act as "a road maintained at public expense". So for SORN, you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

QUOTE
you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

And how would you do that?


I'd imagine that if you asked them to come and repair some aspect of it that was a danger to the public, you'd probably get the answer you were looking for wink.gif
Cargy
QUOTE (Jimzzr @ Fri, 15 Aug 2008 - 10:58) *
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Fri, 15 Aug 2008 - 08:28) *
QUOTE (patdavies @ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 - 23:21) *
However, for MoT, VED and SORN, the applicable act is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 - not the RTA.

For these, VERA has a specific definition of a public road within the Act as "a road maintained at public expense". So for SORN, you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

QUOTE
you merely have to demonstrate to DVLA/Magistrates that the road is not maintained at public expense

And how would you do that?


I'd imagine that if you asked them to come and repair some aspect of it that was a danger to the public, you'd probably get the answer you were looking for wink.gif



I like your thinking! laugh.gif
fatboytim
Surely if status is disputed it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that it is what they say, especially if the Land Registry also throw doubt on the status.

fatboytim
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.