# Petition: Amend PCSC Bill to withdraw power to seize vehicles used as mobile homes



## Deleted member 85077 (Jul 4, 2021)

Hi Guys, I know this is aimed at travellers, both new age and gypsy, however we occasional wild campers will be tared with the same brush.
Have a look at the website below, or don't I cant tell you what to do.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-bill-2021-unauthorised-encampments-factsheet

If you want to sign the petition then follow this link:  https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/583903


----------



## Fisherman (Jul 4, 2021)

Done.


----------



## Debroos (Jul 4, 2021)

Done


----------



## st3v3 (Jul 4, 2021)

This isn't going to be used against us. It may even have a positive impact as height barriers etc. are not required if travellers can be quickly evicted.


----------



## GeoffL (Jul 4, 2021)

st3v3 said:


> This isn't going to be used against us. It may even have a positive impact as height barriers etc. are not required if travellers can be quickly evicted.


My thoughts exactly. ATM, councils and landowners are making life as difficult as possible for motorhomers and van lifers and I suspect this is because it's so difficult to get belligerent traveller mobs to move without going through the courts and turning up with an eviction order, bailiffs and the police. Having the right to just tell people to move on and for that to be quickly enforceable could be to our advantage. With that to hand, they may be more amenable to courteous wild campers.


----------



## jacquigem (Jul 4, 2021)

Yes for me the phrase fails to leave when asked by landowner is important. I have never wanted  to stop if landowner against me doing so.


----------



## colinm (Jul 4, 2021)

> The offence will be committed if a person who resides or intends to reside with a vehicle on land fails to leave the land or remove their property without reasonable excuse when asked to do so by the occupier of the land, their representative or a constable and they have caused, or are likely to cause, significant damage, disruption, or distress (including anti-social behaviour).



If the law does this it gets my wholehearted approval.
GF took the youngest to her swimming lesson last Thursday, the carpark for pool had been taken over.


----------



## The Jacks (Jul 4, 2021)

Done


----------



## Fisherman (Jul 4, 2021)

I agree that currently this law is not directed towards us.
But reading some of the posts on this thread they could have been directed at us by others who seem to despise us.
We have been accused of taking over carparks, I witnessed such a thing only last month in Elie, Fife.
If this law goes through and is used on the travellers, there are narrow minded NIMBYS with the attention span of a goldfish looking at us.
And unfortunately these people are in positions of power within local communities.
Hence why I reckon we need national policies which would override these local laws and bye laws.

Yes I get it, we are at times tarred with the brush as travellers, and that is wrong because clearly we are not the same.
But in my honest opinion there is a movement in this country towards stricter land controls, driven by ignorance, and accentuated by Covid, and all that is going on right now. I fear that this law will be used as a template by some, and will be amended unfavourably towards us in future.
Be careful what you wish for, because it may just come home to bite you.
Just look what happened in Portugal, and is now being considered in Spain.


----------



## brian c (Jul 4, 2021)

It is not just a certain part of the community taking over difficult to move    Read about   The motorhomers that sheerness are now serving notices on.  Up at leysown near shellness the long lay-by by the beach up to 60  parked there. Some have been there over 9 months. Now if that is not cutting our own throats    We stopped going there  a year plus ago when there were20 plus parked there.  Two of which were there every time we went there over a 2 month period   Both had a W sticker.  Whether still current members or ….   I was asked on this forum last year what my opinion of wild camping was. Part of my reply was not staying in one place more then2/3 nights.  That caused one person to be annoyed. Another to be upset a third to be confused. So I empathise this is an opinion not a law or a rule     Ps one of the people in a Moho there says his children go to school from there and he has an allotment nearby. That sounds more like a resident then a motorhome to me.    Brian


----------



## Fisherman (Jul 4, 2021)

brian c said:


> It is not just a certain part of the community taking over difficult to move    Read about   The motorhomers that sheerness are now serving notices on.  Up at leysown near shellness the long lay-by by the beach up to 60  parked there. Some have been there over 9 months. Now if that is not cutting our own throats    We stopped going there  a year plus ago when there were20 plus parked there.  Two of which were there every time we went there over a 2 month period   Both had a W sticker.  Whether still current members or ….   I was asked on this forum last year what my opinion of wild camping was. Part of my reply was not staying in one place more then2/3 nights.  That caused one person to be annoyed. Another to be upset a third to be confused. So I empathise this is an opinion not a law or a rule     Ps one of the people in a Moho there says his children go to school from there and he has an allotment nearby. That sounds more like a resident then a motorhome to me.    Brian


I don’t regard these people as wild campers, I am sure you don’t either Brian.
But sadly some uniformed people in power do.
As you say they are residents, not wild campers.
We set a two night rule, sadly some don’t, and they are ruining things for others with their selfish behaviour.


----------



## colinm (Jul 4, 2021)

If you read the section I've quoted you will see that the law 'as planned' (although this might well change) is fairly toothless when it comes to any 'well behaved' wild camper.


----------



## witzend (Jul 4, 2021)

I'd rather the Police didn't get this power as what ever is quoted they'd translate it to suit themselves. As for travellers in Europe places are provided for them Gens du Voyage in France why don't our councils do the same here which would remove their parking problems. They'd not seize one of their vehicles as that would make a family Homeless and require rehousing.
But They'd have one of ours in a minute
Petition signed


----------



## The laird (Jul 4, 2021)

Done


----------



## molly 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

Should  councils provide  legal  sites ore encampments  ? That would  help aliveiate the problem .


----------



## mistericeman (Jul 4, 2021)

molly 2 said:


> Should  councils provide  legal  sites ore encampments  ? That would  help aliveiate the problem .


They already have to afaik 





__





						Plan making - Spaces and places for Gypsies and Travellers: how planning can help
					

Councils have a duty to allocate sufficient land for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs.




					www.local.gov.uk
				




There are a certain element within their community that don't wish to be on any site as such... And will ignore any efforts to tell them where they can stay or not, there are also an element that cause havoc anywhere they stop... (sound familiar) 

Frankly IF some of them didn't cause havoc wherever they parked I think it'd be unlikely anyone would complain... 

Again sounds familiar.....


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 4, 2021)

witzend said:


> I'd rather the Police didn't get this power as what ever is quoted they'd translate it to suit themselves. As for travellers in Europe places are provided for them Gens du Voyage in France why don't our councils do the same here which would remove their parking problems. They'd not seize one of their vehicles as that would make a family Homeless and require rehousing.
> But They'd have one of ours in a minute
> Petition signed



Why don't our councils do the same?   A very good question.  From some of my own research but mainly that of John Thompson we found that councils are required to make space - but ignore the requirement.  Mostly.   I think there are one or two up and down the country;   one I remember was in Leeds.   I had some discussions with some Traveller oarganisation a few years ago and was told of that but a very quick google doesn't turn it up.  

But this came up easily enough:





__





						Plan making - Spaces and places for Gypsies and Travellers: how planning can help
					

Councils have a duty to allocate sufficient land for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs.




					www.local.gov.uk


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 4, 2021)

Mr Iceman.  Beat me to it.  Thankyou


----------



## witzend (Jul 4, 2021)

mistericeman said:


> They already have to afaik
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats dated 2007 wonder how many places that have been created ?


----------



## mistericeman (Jul 4, 2021)

witzend said:


> Thats dated 2007 wonder how many places that have been created ?


Difficult to find an accurate number in a easy to read format (there was a, online map BUT now seems to be unavailable now. 

Think even this dates back sometime (possibly 2010/2011) 
When I last looked into it. 
, Traveller and travelling showpeople caravan sites by local authority​Click heading to sort - Download this data


IgnoreLocal AuthoritiesRegionTotal number of pitchesResidentialTransitCaravan capacitySOURCE: DCLG 1North EastNE19519503292Durham UANE909001043Middlesbrough U ANE16160454Northumberland UANE32320645Redcar & Cleveland U ANE14140346Stockton-on-Tees U ANE29290547GatesheadNE14140288North WestNW425383426619Blackburn & Darwen UANW202004010Blackpool U ANW262605211BoltonNW262605212BuryNW171702513Cheshire East UANW171701714Cumbria CCNW151503015Halton U ANW3725127416Lancashire CCNW474707417LiverpoolNW141402218ManchesterNW666607019RochdaleNW272705420SalfordNW6131306221SeftonNW161602522St. HelensNW202004023WiganNW161602424Yorkshire and the HumberY&H55753324104325BarnsleyY&H282805626BradfordY&H464609427DoncasterY&H5949109828East Riding of Yorkshire U AY&H413744729Kingston-upon-Hull U AY&H7070010030KirkleesY&H121202431LeedsY&H4141012032North LincolnshireY&H131301333North Yorkshire CCY&H1231131015134SheffieldY&H313106135WakefieldY&H3838011436YorkY&H5555016537East MidlandsEast Mid2702561449538Derbyshire CCEast Mid333126639Leicester U AEast Mid212104240Leicestershire CCEast Mid232303341Lincolnshire CCEast Mid89771216142Northamptonshire CCEast Mid9292016943Nottinghamshire CCEast Mid121202444West MidlandsWest Mid5545401493845BirminghamWest Mid151501546DudleyWest Mid191903247Herefordshire U AWest Mid5959011448SandwellWest Mid151502549Shropshire UAWest Mid464609450Staffordshire CCWest Mid313103551Stoke-on-Trent U AWest Mid4533127452Telford & Wrekin U AWest Mid363607053WalsallWest Mid191904054Warwickshire CCWest Mid8181011055WolverhamptonWest Mid404004056Worcestershire CCWest Mid148146228957EastEast92685373180358Bedford UAEast161603259Central Bedfordshire UAEast494909860Cambridgeshire CCEast1621511140461Essex CCEast169169031462Hertfordshire CCEast1951801538763Luton U AEast202002664Norfolk CCEast1471004724665Peterborough U AEast6464012866Suffolk CCEast404004067Thurrock U AEast6464012868LondonLondon4744561867669Barking and DagenhamLondon111101570BexleyLondon101001271BrentLondon303006072BromleyLondon363607273CamdenLondon550574CroydonLondon191901975EalingLondon242404876HackneyLondon272703977HaringeyLondon101001078HarrowLondon110179HillingdonLondon202002080HounslowLondon202002081Kensington & ChelseaLondon191901982Kingston upon ThamesLondon151501583LambethLondon151501584NewhamLondon151503085RedbridgeLondon161601686Richmond upon ThamesLondon121201287SuttonLondon3315185288Tower HamletsLondon191903489Waltham ForestLondon131302690WandsworthLondon111101191South EastSE101798928140892Bracknell Forest UASE131301393Brighton and Hove UASE230232394Buckinghamshire CCSE8080016095East Sussex CCSE292904096Hampshire CCSE7878013897Kent CCSE201201026098Medway Towns U ASE111101299Milton Keynes U ASE1818018100Oxfordshire CCSE80800160101Southampton U ASE1414036102Slough UASE3939039103Surrey CCSE2302300290104West Berkshire U ASE1818036105West Sussex CCSE1281235128106Windsor and Maidenhead U ASE2525025107Wokingham U ASE3030030108South WestSW58150774997109Bristol UASW32122045110Cornwall UASW64640104111Devon CCSW1717020112Dorset CCSW4747059113Gloucestershire CCSW81810140114North Somerset U ASW77015115Plymouth UASW1313026116Poole U ASW1515015117Somerset CCSW1047925149118South Gloucestershire U ASW39390117119Swindon U ASW54371791120Wiltshire UASW1089612216121EnglandENGLAND499947122878350


----------



## mistericeman (Jul 4, 2021)

There is more reading here for anyone interested.



			https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891229/Traveller_caravan_count_2020_stats_release.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiPmqXAhcrxAhXUolwKHQ3aAfoQFjAEegQIDRAC&usg=AOvVaw1mwDmg1o_mmDa0CnCEG_nh


----------



## Wotascandal (Jul 4, 2021)

This is going to adversely affect many people who live in their vans because they cannot afford to buy or rent a house or flat with the current property prices and rents, A case in point: my step daughter, she has two degrees and is a key worker in the NHS as a psychiatric nurse in Bristol. This new law is draconian and is par for the course from the likes of Priti Patel. It is a shameful attack on the vast majority of currently law abiding van dwellers.


----------



## Drover (Jul 4, 2021)

Section 4 is the bit that needs removing from the bill








						FFT calls for Part 4 of Police Bill to be scrapped - Friends, Families and Travellers
					

In May, Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT) made a submission to the Public Bill Committee, calling for the removal of Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (PCSC Bill). The submission, which can … FFT calls for Part 4 of Police Bill to be scrapped Read More »




					www.gypsy-traveller.org


----------



## TissyD (Jul 4, 2021)

It is about time that the law was returned to how it was  before Tony Blair changed it. It stated that if someone was preventing you carrying out your normal work the police could move them on immediately. Not take 3 weeks to go to court for an order. The carpark in Bridlington and the skatepark have just had to be closed while the travellers were there. The council can make a byelaw every year banning drinking in the street why can't they do the same for unauthorised camps.


----------



## GeoffL (Jul 4, 2021)

Drover said:


> Section 4 is the bit that needs removing from the bill
> 
> 
> 
> ...


AFAICT, Section 4 is completely reasonable unless you are of the opinion that the rights of those taking control of land by camping there against the express wishes of the landowner override landowners' rights to their own land.


----------



## mrlobby (Jul 5, 2021)

Gaza1515 said:


> Hi Guys, I know this is aimed at travellers, both new age and gypsy, however we occasional wild campers will be tared with the same brush.
> Have a look at the website below, or don't I cant tell you what to do.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-bill-2021-unauthorised-encampments-factsheet
> ...


 "Van dwellers" are distinct from "travellers" which is a category with special protection under human rights legislation.


----------



## st3v3 (Jul 5, 2021)

Wotascandal said:


> because they cannot afford to buy or rent a house or flat with the current property prices and rents, A case in point: my step daughter, she has two degrees and is a key worker in the NHS as a psychiatric nurse in Bristol.



Doesn't that put her on £25k+?


----------



## Ellendale (Jul 5, 2021)

brian c said:


> It is not just a certain part of the community taking over difficult to move    Read about   The motorhomers that sheerness are now serving notices on.  Up at leysown near shellness the long lay-by by the beach up to 60  parked there. Some have been there over 9 months. Now if that is not cutting our own throats    We stopped going there  a year plus ago when there were20 plus parked there.  Two of which were there every time we went there over a 2 month period   Both had a W sticker.  Whether still current members or ….   I was asked on this forum last year what my opinion of wild camping was. Part of my reply was not staying in one place more then2/3 nights.  That caused one person to be annoyed. Another to be upset a third to be confused. So I empathise this is an opinion not a law or a rule     Ps one of the people in a Moho there says his children go to school from there and he has an allotment nearby. That sounds more like a resident then a motorhome to me.    Brian


Exactly the same happened on the sea front at Aberystwyth. When we travelled the west coastline of Wales we often stopped over night in Aber - can't anymore after inconsiderate people decided to stay for months at a time! At one point I counted 27 all in a line and most of them had gas bottles on the pavement and grey water taps dripping into the road. Quite a few had their dogs tied up to the van and unscooped poop on the pavement. At this particular time I counted 12 with the big green W - a nice advert I don't think! Oh and now? Not only is the parking area patrolled but the signs are very clear indeed since new legislation passed by the Council. Another lovely stopover ruined!


----------



## Polar Bear (Jul 5, 2021)

I believe that the canals and rivers of England have restrictions on how long you can stay in one place before being required to move on? Why not park-ups?


----------



## trevskoda (Jul 5, 2021)

Fact is with folks you give an inch and they take a mile leaving little for others.


----------



## Drover (Jul 5, 2021)

GeoffL said:


> AFAICT, Section 4 is completely reasonable unless you are of the opinion that the rights of those taking control of land by camping there against the express wishes of the landowner override landowners' rights to their own land.


At the other end of the spectrum is 
Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
All fair I guess....


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 5, 2021)

But, as far as I can see, this will apply also to land in public ownership.  If so, then the Bill will be in conflict with other laws.  You might remember the Court of Appeal ruling supporting the right of Travellers not to have their nomadic lifestyle obstructed.   The ruling was about council injunctions but it's not too imaginative to include height barriers and such in the spirit of the ruling.  I think Bill is an effort to get around the ruling.






Organisations such as_ "Liberty" _equally concerned about things like the right to protest being taken away as part of the Bill.


----------



## RV2MAX (Jul 5, 2021)

Drover said:


> At the other end of the spectrum is
> Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
> All fair I guess....


What happenened after police and landowner arrived to cause vehicle to be seized and "you" in prison ?


----------



## colinm (Jul 5, 2021)

Drover said:


> At the other end of the spectrum is
> Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
> All fair I guess....


Why post this? It's not how the law is proposed at all, it quite clearly says.



> The offence will be committed if a person who resides or intends to reside with a vehicle on land fails to leave the land or remove their property without reasonable excuse when asked to do so by the occupier of the land, their representative or a constable and they have caused, or are likely to cause, significant damage, disruption, or distress (including anti-social behaviour).


----------



## GeoffL (Jul 5, 2021)

Drover said:


> At the other end of the spectrum is
> Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
> All fair I guess....


The "other end of the spectrum" is not as you portray it. If you stop on private land and along comes the owner, with or without the police, the vehicle could only be impounded if you refused to move within a reasonable time and without reasonable excuse, or had been asked to leave within the previous 12 months and had returned without a reasonable excuse. Before commenting further, you might want to read the actual Bill, which I've linked below. The part you are trying to have removed starts on page 56 of the Bill (page 66 of the PDF).
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0133/210133.pdf


----------



## TR5 (Jul 5, 2021)

I don't see this as an issue, because if you 'camped' on someone else's land and they asked you to leave, would you refuse to do so, without good cause?

" The offence will be committed if a person who resides or intends to reside with a vehicle on land fails to leave the land or remove their property without reasonable excuse when asked to do so by the occupier of the land, their representative or a constable and they have caused, or are likely to cause, significant damage, disruption, or distress (including anti-social behaviour)."

We have a 'duty of care' for other people's property/land, and I certainly wouldn't be camped anywhere with the intention of causing significant damage or disruption to the owner's land, or be anti-social if asked to vacate the land.  Inconvenient maybe, but anti-social - never.
If it is not my land/property, why would I.

I really can't see how this amendment is going to affect anyone, unless they have the 'intent' to refuse to leave, leave loads of rubbish behind, decimate the ground they are parked on, or be abusive or violent to the land owner or police.  Can someone enlighten me?


----------



## witzend (Jul 5, 2021)

colinm said:


> Why post this? It's not how the law is proposed at all, it quite clearly says.


But very likely how it will be used by mr plod


----------



## mistericeman (Jul 5, 2021)

Similar when the whole section 59 Law was introduced to try to control illegal use of offroad vehicles in unauthorised places... 
(*Section 59* (1) of the Police Reform *Act* 2002 establishes that where a police constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a *motor* vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which contravenes *section* 3 or *section* 34 of the *Road Traffic Act* 1988 (careless and inconsiderate *driving* and prohibition ...) 

The drivers of offroad vehicles were up in arms at the thought of their vehicles being seized.... 

Despite the fact that it was only ever intended as a tool to prevent illegal usage on unauthorised places.... 

Most cases of illegal/unauthorised use have resulted in the section 59 being issued as a warning.... 

Only as a last resort have vehicles been impounded (and mostly due to not insurance issues) 
Including the tit that drove his frontera up Snowdon several times. 

The whole section 59 has frankly been a good thing for legal drivers on legal byways as its given the police a easy to apply tool to deal with the Neds.... 

I suspect the above will be the same....


----------



## witzend (Jul 5, 2021)

TR5 said:


> I don't see this as an issue, because if you 'camped' on someone else's land and they asked you to leave, would you refuse to do so, without good cause?


Will they be required to show proof of ownership otherwise could just be any nimby


----------



## trevskoda (Jul 5, 2021)

Right thats it, if I find one of you on my lawn in the morning there will be trouble.


----------



## TR5 (Jul 5, 2021)

Ellendale said:


> Exactly the same happened on the sea front at Aberystwyth. When we travelled the west coastline of Wales we often stopped over night in Aber - can't anymore after inconsiderate people decided to stay for months at a time! At one point I counted 27 all in a line and most of them had gas bottles on the pavement and grey water taps dripping into the road. Quite a few had their dogs tied up to the van and unscooped poop on the pavement. At this particular time I counted 12 with the big green W - a nice advert I don't think! Oh and now? Not only is the parking area patrolled but the signs are very clear indeed since new legislation passed by the Council. Another lovely stopover ruined!



As usual, the majority get affected by the inconsiderate actions of the few.


----------



## TR5 (Jul 5, 2021)

Wotascandal said:


> This is going to adversely affect many people who live in their vans because they cannot afford to buy or rent a house or flat with the current property prices and rents, A case in point: my step daughter, she has two degrees and is a key worker in the NHS as a psychiatric nurse in Bristol. This new law is draconian and is par for the course from the likes of Priti Patel. It is a shameful attack on the vast majority of currently law abiding van dwellers.



Why is it. You don't have a 'right' to park on other people's property or land?
If you have sought permission to park and it's been granted, you won't be asked to leave - unless you have disrespected the area by dumping rubbish, been ant-social, or been the cause of damage to the property or surroundings.
If you are a 'law-abiding' van dweller, you won't be parked illegally, or carrying out anti-social activities, so how is this a 'shameful attack' - can't see the issue here.


----------



## GeoffL (Jul 5, 2021)

maureenandtom said:


> But, as far as I can see, this will apply also to land in public ownership.  If so, then the Bill will be in conflict with other laws.  You might remember the Court of Appeal ruling supporting the right of Travellers not to have their nomadic lifestyle obstructed.   The ruling was about council injunctions but it's not too imaginative to include height barriers and such in the spirit of the ruling.  I think Bill is an effort to get around the ruling.


TBH, the "unauthorised encampment" bit seems almost an afterthought as the Bill does much, much more than turn the previously civil matter of setting up camp and refusing to move into a criminal one. I've posted a link to the Bill below for those who want the info 'from the horses mouth'.


maureenandtom said:


> Organisations such as_ "Liberty" _equally concerned about things like the right to protest being taken away as part of the Bill.


AFAICT, it doesn't take away the right to protest. However, it does explicitly ban the disruption of lawful activity usually carried out at a place of protest. So, for example, the group of protesters who chained themselves to concrete blocks to blockade McDonalds distribution centres would have committed a criminal offence under the new legislation.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0133/210133.pdf


----------



## DocMartin (Jul 5, 2021)

witzend said:


> I'd rather the Police didn't get this power as what ever is quoted they'd translate it to suit themselves. As for travellers in Europe places are provided for them Gens du Voyage in France why don't our councils do the same here which would remove their parking problems. They'd not seize one of their vehicles as that would make a family Homeless and require rehousing.
> But They'd have one of ours in a minute
> Petition signed


Yes, if the police get this power they will use it whether justified or not. As we have seen countless times they now dish out fines and arrest people just because they like to exert power over people and punish rather than protect them.


----------



## Val54 (Jul 5, 2021)

The Bill is partly an attempt to counter the failings of Section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act. Under that Act, the police have powers to move on unauthorised encampments of 6 or more vehicles. However most forces will not use that power unless there is a legal traveller site within that local authority area to which the "offenders" can moved. If there is and the "offenders" refuse to go to that site, then the police have the power to escort them out of that local authority area. These "transit sites" for travellers are as rare as hen's teeth, why, when the local authority is required to provide them as well as permanent sites? Simple, cash and politics, cash strapped authorities don't have such provision high on their priorities and no local councillor is going to vote for a transit site to be established in their area. This historic merry-go-round has no quick fix and no solution that will please everyone. The best traveller sites are run by the travellers themselves, but they have very strict codes as to which "groups" they will allow on. Unfortunately there is a minority of the travelling community that will never fit in either to the travellers' own traditions or the public generally.


----------



## TR5 (Jul 5, 2021)

witzend said:


> I'd rather the Police didn't get this power as what ever is quoted they'd translate it to suit themselves. As for travellers in Europe places are provided for them Gens du Voyage in France why don't our councils do the same here which would remove their parking problems. They'd not seize one of their vehicles as that would make a family Homeless and require rehousing.
> But They'd have one of ours in a minute
> Petition signed



If a van-dweller, how would that not make them homeless too?

We all know the issues with so-called travellers / gypsy's / or whatever you wish to call them. If they respected the environment where they pitched, didn't cause havoc in the local area's as many do by theft, fights, dumping rubbish and vehicles, intimidating people etc., then they would be better accepted in all communities.  I am not suggesting every one is like this, but we all know that many are, thus making more and more restrictions for everyone in a motorhome (or caravan).



DocMartin said:


> Yes, if the police get this power they will use it whether justified or not. As we have seen countless times they now dish out fines and arrest people just because they like to exert power over people and punish rather than protect them.



I've not found that with the Police. They have a difficult job to do, and yes, there will always be the odd heavy-handed over-the-top policeman, as there are in all walks of life. Maybe previously had to deal with a very awkward customer.... but generally I have found them fair - if you treat them with respect too.  They are only human like the rest of us.  If a whole group of motorhomer's illegally parked on private or public land without permission, I'm sure they would go in heavy-handed, as they would (rightly or wrongly) assume they would be met by trouble.


----------



## TR5 (Jul 5, 2021)

Val54 said:


> These "transit sites" for travellers are as rare as hen's teeth, why, when the local authority is required to provide them as well as permanent sites? Simple, cash and politics, cash strapped authorities don't have such provision high on their priorities and no local councillor is going to vote for a transit site to be established in their area.



Not surprising really, when you see how some site's are treated.


----------



## Harrytherid (Jul 5, 2021)

Done


----------



## witzend (Jul 5, 2021)

TR5 said:


> If a van-dweller, how would that not make them homeless too?
> 
> We all know the issues with so-called travellers / gypsy's / or whatever you wish to call them.


Van Dwellers will do


----------



## Mtbcol (Jul 5, 2021)

Gaza1515 said:


> Hi Guys, I know this is aimed at travellers, both new age and gypsy, however we occasional wild campers will be tared with the same brush.
> Have a look at the website below, or don't I cant tell you what to do.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-bill-2021-unauthorised-encampments-factsheet
> ...


Done.


----------



## witzend (Jul 5, 2021)

News report here today








						Motorhomes parked without permission could be seized
					

It is one of a series of new measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill going through Parliament




					www.cornwalllive.com


----------



## RV2MAX (Jul 6, 2021)

If a law doesnt have any teeth  its not much point having it , as it will just be ignored  JMHE


----------



## TR5 (Jul 6, 2021)

witzend said:


> News report here today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Typical newspaper dramatising…


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 6, 2021)

Thank you TR5.   Maybe not dramatising - maybe genuine misgivings.    I think that because all of us will agree with at least some part of the Bill then we believe we have to accept ALL of the Bill.  And maybe we do.  However, there seems to me to be a growing list of respectable organisastions voicing opposition and raising petitions.   I've stopped looking but here are three.   The one from Liberty is particularly worth a read.

*Manifesto Club* http://manifestoclub.info/do-we-wan...the-police-bill-must-be-stopped-at-all-costs/

*Amnesty Internationa*l https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-mps-should-vote-down-dystopian-policing-bill

*Liberty* https://www.libertyhumanrights.org....-Courts-Bill-HoC-2nd-reading-March-2021-1.pdf

These at least will be factual rather then merely intended to heighten emotion.

I'm not in favour of the Bill though there are parts I agree with;   and parts I do not.   I've signed a couple of petitions and I'm broadly against it - mainly because of the increased restrictions on our recreational motorhoming way of life.


----------



## witzend (Jul 6, 2021)

Whats needed is a Motor Home Users organisation to support us like the French  UCCF 
https://www.uccf-ffaccc.fr/  hpw would the French protest if a similar bill was likely to be passed in France


----------



## Fisherman (Jul 6, 2021)

witzend said:


> Whats needed is a Motor Home Users organisation to support us like the French  UCCF
> https://www.uccf-ffaccc.fr/  hpw would the French protest if a similar bill was likely to be passed in France


Absolutely, we need an organisation to stand our corner. I doubt if french motorhome users would tolerate what we do.


----------



## TR5 (Jul 6, 2021)

maureenandtom said:


> Thank you TR5.   Maybe not dramatising - maybe genuine misgivings.    I think that because all of us will agree with at least some part of the Bill then we believe we have to accept ALL of the Bill.  And maybe we do.  However, there seems to me to be a growing list of respectable organisastions voicing opposition and raising petitions.   I've stopped looking but here are three.   The one from Liberty is particularly worth a read.
> 
> *Manifesto Club* http://manifestoclub.info/do-we-wan...the-police-bill-must-be-stopped-at-all-costs/
> 
> ...



I agree, the rights to protest (or not) is a worrying concern, my comments have all been based on the effects to the motorhoming community, as a whole.

Any moves towards making the UK a Police State is a bad one.

Any moves to tip the scales to make life better for the innocent Joe Public, to protect their Human Rights against those of transgressors, and for the benefit of those that abide by common sense laws, is a good one. 

This new Bill has such a mixture of both, that it is difficult to make any decisions...


----------



## GeoffL (Jul 6, 2021)

witzend said:


> News report here today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hardly an unbiased report from Cornwall Live, who seem to regularly align with Malcolm Bell of "Visit Cornwall" and the CCCC (Cornwall Council Campsite Cartel) in their apparent hatred of motorhomers.


----------



## trevskoda (Jul 6, 2021)

You will only fall foul if as it states don't pack up and move, simple from what I see.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Jul 6, 2021)

GeoffL said:


> Hardly an unbiased report from *Cornwall Live*, who seem to regularly align with Malcolm Bell of "Visit Cornwall" and the CCCC (Cornwall Council Campsite Cartel) in their apparent hatred of motorhomers.


Also known down here as Cornwall Lies.....


----------



## trevskoda (Jul 6, 2021)

RoadTrek Boy said:


> Also known down here as Cornwall Lies.....


The gov is always telling you porkies just to control and harvest your dosh, time folk wakened up.


----------



## Rolyan57 (Jul 6, 2021)

Drover said:


> At the other end of the spectrum is
> Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
> All fair I guess....


But that won’t happen. The ‘triggers’ mean that you have refused to leave when asked, and are also likely to cause significant damage.

There is not a cat in hells chance that you will somehow find yourself arrested and your van impounded. Let’s keep this sensible.


----------



## Tookey (Jul 6, 2021)

Real world;

Recently I stayed in Quantock Hills, in a car park that was maintained by the 'Friends of Quantock' which is a charity. There was a 'no overnight parking' sign but after googling I came to the conclusion that they had no right to dictate that.

So my concern after reading the proposed Bill is if 'Friends of Quantock' *officially *requested the police to enforce their 'no over night parking' wishes then are the police then under obligation.

I am not concerned about my van been seized or anything like that but would this Bill remove my actual right to stay, the wording seems to imply it could but I'm really not sure. With regards to the wording 'are likely to cause significant damage etc' this is a cause for concern as interpretation is left wide open to the judgement of an individual law enforcer which I personally am uncomfortable with and in my example what stops the police from using the Bill, moving me on stating that I'm a potential fire risk  

Thoughts appreciated as presently I am unsure whether to sign, we recently visited Blue Planet Aquarium and part of the car park was under occupation of a van dwelling community and it really wasnt pleasant to be honest. I feel this Bill could also be the first step in opening a can of worms for our hobby if authorities try to use the Bill and more concerningly request additional clauses for other non desirables (us)









						Friends of Quantock - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## st3v3 (Jul 6, 2021)

Tookey said:


> but would this Bill remove my actual right to stay,



I don't know anything about the place, what do you think means you have the right to stay?


----------



## mistericeman (Jul 6, 2021)

Tookey said:


> Real world;
> 
> Recently I stayed in Quantock Hills, in a car park that was maintained by the 'Friends of Quantock' which is a charity. There was a 'no overnight parking' sign but after googling I came to the conclusion that they had no right to dictate that.
> 
> ...


"I am not concerned about my van been seized or anything like that but would this Bill remove my actual right to stay," 

Interesting use of phrase.....


----------



## Tookey (Jul 6, 2021)

st3v3 said:


> I don't know anything about the place, what do you think means you have the right to stay?





mistericeman said:


> "I am not concerned about my van been seized or anything like that but would this Bill remove my actual right to stay,"
> 
> Interesting use of phrase.....


'Right to stay' as it is not private property nor was I causing an obstruction


----------



## Tookey (Jul 6, 2021)

Following taken from link above;

In 2012 Somerset County Council declared their land holdings on the Quantocks to be 'Surplus' and announced their intention to sell them.[8] Friends of Quantock opposed in principle the transfer of Quantock land out of public ownership but was successful in negotiating the acquisition of 400 acres (160 ha) of heathland and forest under a Community Asset Transfer Scheme for the sum of £2. Over Stowey Customs Common and Thorncombe Hill are therefore owned and held by Friends of Quantock for the benefit of the public.[9] As a result of this purchase the Charity was dissolved and reincorporated as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation to protect its trustees from the liabilities of property ownership

So no liability of ownership so 'no parking overnight' seems unfounded (only in my opinion)


----------



## mistericeman (Jul 6, 2021)

Tookey said:


> 'Right to stay' as it is not private property nor was I causing an obstruction



Funny.... 

I never think of it as a 'Right' to stay.... 

I usually consider it a priveledge


----------



## Alec (Jul 6, 2021)

Issued a couple of weeks ago....


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 6, 2021)

_owned and held by Friends of Quantock for the benefit of the public._

It’s beneficial to the public to be able to park overnight.

I suppose that could well be interpreted as a right. And in the absence of a legally enacted ruling to the contrary then _Entick versus Carrington_ would apply; the right given here is that the individual may do anything which is not prohibited. Courts see this as a fundamental right.

So what of the _No Parking Overnighting_ sign? In the absence of a legally enacted ruling to the contrary then the notice “_No Parking Overnghting_” is fraudulent. I’m relying on the Fraud Act 2006 Section 2






But all that isn't really relevant except to those who like nitpicking.    What I think Tookey and others have conveyed is a worry that individuals are being given too much discretionary power.   Opinions might vary as to whether an assembly is like to cause distress etc.      And authority is not averse to using untruths to get its own way.  The case about a year ago where a van was instructed to move to comply with a Lade District Byelaw.   The Byelaw proved not to exist.   https://wildcamping.co.uk/threads/1970s-bylaw-used-to-ban-camping-in-lake-district.81887/


Safest not to give individuals in authority too much discretionary power.


----------



## Tookey (Jul 6, 2021)

mistericeman said:


> Funny....
> 
> I never think of it as a 'Right' to stay....
> 
> I usually consider it a priveledge


This is the context I am using the expression;

'Article 5 protects your right not to be deprived of your liberty or freedom unless it’s in accordance with the law'

This refers to detainment but I'm just trying to explain my use of the term

Taken from;









						Your right to personal liberty
					

Explains how the right to personal liberty is protected by article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998 meaning you cannot be detained for reasons other than criminal activity or mental health issues.




					www.citizensadvice.org.uk


----------



## Tookey (Jul 6, 2021)

mistericeman said:


> Funny....
> 
> I never think of it as a 'Right' to stay....
> 
> I usually consider it a priveledge


I dont understand, 'right' and 'privilege' have exactly the same mesning in the context of 'being permitted'

What do you mean?


----------



## mistericeman (Jul 6, 2021)

Tookey said:


> I dont understand, 'right' and 'privilege' have exactly the same mesning in the context of 'being permitted'
> 
> What do you mean?


I consider it a priveledge to park up somewhere.... 

NOT my right to do so....


----------



## GeoffL (Jul 6, 2021)

Tookey said:


> I dont understand, 'right' and 'privilege' have exactly the same mesning in the context of 'being permitted'
> 
> What do you mean?


FWIW, I've always understood a "right" to be absolute, something that nobody can lawfully take away; while a "privilege" is something that is granted or permitted and can be taken away by the person or entity who grants that privilege.


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

mistericeman said:


> I consider it a priveledge to park up somewhere....
> 
> NOT my right to do so....





GeoffL said:


> FWIW, I've always understood a "right" to be absolute, something that nobody can lawfully take away; while a "privilege" is something that is granted or permitted and can be taken away by the person or entity who grants that privilege.


Privilege (noun)

'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.'

Mistericeman, why do you consider your parking a 'special' right available to a particular person/group, that doesn't make sense, why is you parking a 'privilege', a parking space for 'Directors Only' in a workplace is a privilege, why do you have a 'lord of the manor' attitude towards parking in a public carpark rather than simply your right?

What is the issue with my use of the word, would you not use the 'right to roam' expression with regards to Scotland?

Geoff, I am saying that the Quantock Hills carpark I used is not privately owned so presently 'nobody can lawfully take away' my right to park, it is not a privilege as no organisation can legally remove it. In my reply to Mistericeman I simply meant that he was stating that he considers it as a right (privilege) and not a right (lawful), reads like a contradiction and not accurate.


----------



## GeoffL (Jul 7, 2021)

Tookey said:


> Geoff, I am saying that the Quantock Hills carpark I used is not privately owned so presently 'nobody can lawfully take away' my right to park, it is not a privilege as no organisation can legally remove it. In my reply to Mistericeman I simply meant that he was stating that he considers it as a right (privilege) and not a right (lawful), reads like a contradiction and not accurate.


I don't know enough about the nuances to give a definitive answer. However, it would appear to me that the car park in question is owned by the Friends, who thus have the right to confer the privilege to park to persons of their choosing and at times of their choosing.


----------



## TR5 (Jul 7, 2021)

Perhaps you should write to ‘Friends Of Quantock’ and ask them on what grounds or ‘rights’ do they have to introduce a parking restriction on this specific public land.


----------



## Val54 (Jul 7, 2021)

As I understand it, the "FoQ" are a registered charity, they have a constitution aimed at protecting and furthering the objectives of the organisation. As such they are under the scrutiny of the Charity Commission. The "FoQ" are like a National Trust in miniature and  if they decide that no overnight parking is the correct decision for the benefit of the wider public in protecting conservation interests, then they are entitled to take that management action, provided that it was properly discussed and minuted as per their constitution.  They don't need a TRO or other Order. I'm not saying that in this case it is the right decision, just that they are entitled to make it.


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

Their website seems to indicate that any legal actions are instigated or acted upon by the CIO in their case









						Charitable incorporated organisation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

TR5 said:


> Perhaps you should write to ‘Friends Of Quantock’ and ask them on what grounds or ‘rights’ do they have to introduce a parking restriction on this specific public land.


Will do, shame I didn't take a photo of the sign


----------



## Val54 (Jul 7, 2021)

Tookey said:


> Their website seems to indicate that any legal actions are instigated or acted upon by the CIO in their case
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's right, the "FoQ" are a CIO but they operate in exactly the same way as any other registered charity with a constitution that has to be deposited with the Charity Commission. The main difference between a registered charity and a charity registered as CIO is the extent of liability of the trustees. It makes no difference to their ability to make management/legal decisions in accordance with their constitution.


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

TR5 said:


> Perhaps you should write to ‘Friends Of Quantock’ and ask them on what grounds or ‘rights’ do they have to introduce a parking restriction on this specific public land.


If you are interested in the message I sent;

Dear Sir/Madam,

Recently I visited the Quantock Hills, firstly I would like to congratulate you and your charity in managing to maintain such a beautiful environment, it was a very enjoyable visit.

I am contacting you with regards to a 'no overnight camping' sign located in the car park I visited and I presume all that you maintain. My personal circumstances with regards to camping is that myself and family travel in a self contained motorhome, this includes a toilet and sink where all waste is contained and a hob cooker so there is no requirement to cook (BBQ) outside. Our practice is to enjoy where we stay overnight but leave no evidence that we have been there, this also includes a 'litter pick' of car parks where we do stay.

My question is why have you restricted all camping in any form and have you done so in a legal manner?

Yours Sincerely 

Guy


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

TR5 said:


> Perhaps you should write to ‘Friends Of Quantock’ and ask them on what grounds or ‘rights’ do they have to introduce a parking restriction on this specific public land.


As you can see I have and am interested in their reply but in doing so I am concerned that in this case and similar all I (we) achieve is an organisation starting proceedings to make their ban legal and therefore enforceable, not a good outcome for our community. 

I am interested in other forum members thoughts on this


----------



## Fisherman (Jul 7, 2021)

As much as I admire CAMpRA and all they are doing, I think it’s time that they or another organisation started action to achieve an act of Parliament giving us rights which would override local authorities, in their obvious bias in some cases against us. Without this we are at the mercy of the great Il informed and unwashed who seem to frequent local politics. Friends of Quantock would be powerless to do what they are doing now.


----------



## Val54 (Jul 7, 2021)

Tookey said:


> As you can see I have and am interested in their reply but in doing so I am concerned that in this case and similar all I (we) achieve is an organisation starting proceedings to make their ban legal and therefore enforceable, not a good outcome for our community.
> 
> I am interested in other forum members thoughts on this


I don't think your fears would be realised. The FoQ prohibition on overnight parking is already legal if the decision was taken in accordance with their constitution. If you stayed overnight you would be trespassing. However, in the real world, the sign is only a deterrent at the moment, as it is extremely unlikely that the FoQ would have the time and resources to pursue the odd overnight camper. However if the new Bill is passed into law, they will have the option to engage with the police to get an unauthorised encampment moved on. The signs indicate that anyone staying overnight does not have the owner's permission, so provided the campers refuse to move and are causing significant detrimental issues, the police would be able to act. 



Fisherman said:


> As much as I admire CAMpRA and all they are doing, I think it’s time that they or another organisation started action to achieve an act of Parliament giving us rights which would override local authorities, in their obvious bias in some cases against us. Without this we are at the mercy of the great Il informed and unwashed who seem to frequent local politics. Friends of Quantock would be powerless to do what they are doing now.


In our "democracy" that type of Act is never going to happen whatever organisation is involved. The old adage remains so true, if you want to change something you have to make  "the ill informed and unwashed" into the minority by getting elected and developing a power base of influence within local authorities.


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

Val54 said:


> I don't think your fears would be realised. The FoQ prohibition on overnight parking is already legal if the decision was taken in accordance with their constitution. If you stayed overnight you would be trespassing. However, in the real world, the sign is only a deterrent at the moment, as it is extremely unlikely that the FoQ would have the time and resources to pursue the odd overnight camper. However if the new Bill is passed into law, they will have the option to engage with the police to get an unauthorised encampment moved on. The signs indicate that anyone staying overnight does not have the owner's permission, so provided the campers refuse to move and are causing significant detrimental issues, the police would be able to act.
> 
> 
> In our "democracy" that type of Act is never going to happen whatever organisation is involved. The old adage remains so true, if you want to change something you have to make  "the ill informed and unwashed" into the minority by getting elected and developing a power base of influence within local authorities.


My understanding of a legal ban included the presence of a sign or the information accessible such as on a website dictating the terms of the bans (vehicle type, times etc) and the consequences of ignoring (penalties etc). 

Do you know if I am I wrong?


----------



## Val54 (Jul 7, 2021)

In some circumstances I am sure you are right, e.g. local highway authorities absolutely have to be crystal clear and have followed the correct procedures if they hope to enforce a prohibition. It is the enforcement aspect that is crucial and where I wouldn't agree with MaureenTom regarding fraud. Supposing FoQ has experienced an unauthorised encampment which cost them several hundred pounds to clear up. If the membership through their committees voted for no overnight parking as a response in accordance with their constitution, it wouldn't be fraudulent. They, rightly or wrongly, have decided that that is the best course of action for the management of the area for which they own and are responsible. Contravention of the overnight ban becomes trespass. How the FoQ would procure sufficient evidence to satisfy a court of law that trespass had occurred with only a sign that could be widely interpreted is the point at which I say it would never happen under the current legislation.


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

Val54 said:


> In some circumstances I am sure you are right, e.g. local highway authorities absolutely have to be crystal clear and have followed the correct procedures if they hope to enforce a prohibition. It is the enforcement aspect that is crucial and where I wouldn't agree with MaureenTom regarding fraud. Supposing FoQ has experienced an unauthorised encampment which cost them several hundred pounds to clear up. If the membership through their committees voted for no overnight parking as a response in accordance with their constitution, it wouldn't be fraudulent. They, rightly or wrongly, have decided that that is the best course of action for the management of the area for which they own and are responsible. Contravention of the overnight ban becomes trespass. How the FoQ would procure sufficient evidence to satisfy a court of law that trespass had occurred with only a sign that could be widely interpreted is the point at which I say it would never happen under the current legislation.


That is an interesting conundrum as I do not want to trespass and won't knowingly but I am concerned that 'no overnight parking' signs are being unjustly erected. I went on their website after reading the sign and could not locate any material that stated I would be trespassing, no information on parking at all, the site even states 'that the land remain in public ownership' so I stayed

I am hoping they reply as I would like to point them in the direction of organisations trailling parking with donations.


----------



## Lemut (Jul 7, 2021)

st3v3 said:


> This isn't going to be used against us. It may even have a positive impact as height barriers etc. are not required if travellers can be quickly evicted.


I would like to think so but the not in my backyard groups will see it as a golden light to stop park-ups like those on sea fronts etc..


----------



## st3v3 (Jul 7, 2021)

Imagine the conversation at 1900hrs on a Friday night.

"Hello Police. How may we help?"

"Hi, it's FoC"

"Who?"

"There is a van sleeping in our carpark"

"Ok madam, do you need that parking space for something now?"

"No."

"Are the occupants making a fire or something"

"No."

"Ok, what's the reg number?"

"AB11 ABC"

"The van is showing as fully taxed and insured."

"So are you going to drive to our carpark in the middle of nowhere and move them?"

"Baaahaaahaaa. No."

Click, brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

st3v3 said:


> Imagine the conversation at 1900hrs on a Friday night.
> 
> "Hello Police. How may we help?"
> 
> ...


I agree that that is exactly the present scenario but it's the erosion of rights and the possibility of enforcing wardens  employed by organisations in the future, councils especially using the Act


----------



## maingate (Jul 7, 2021)

I am not signing that petjtion because the wording is too vague. It sounds like a 'get out of jail' card for the people who are causing all the trouble. Travellers live in vehicles too and can claim discrmination if the change only applies to certain groups and not them.


----------



## Val54 (Jul 7, 2021)

The petition is poorly worded and only requires the removal of the proposed police power to seize a vehicle, the proposed powers to  require occupiers to move would remain along with potential prosecution and increasing fines in the event of non-compliance. Although I have concerns about the bill, the petition doesn't deal with the whole issue. As the petition is worded I can imagine the government will simply say that the power to seize a vehicle would only be used as "a last resort in extreme circumstances".


----------



## Fisherman (Jul 7, 2021)

When I first read this act it was clear that it was full of ambiguity, lacking in clarity and directed towards travellers. But my concern is this could lead to changes that would affect wild camping in England. In England it seems that landowners are becoming more empowered and the public who wish to have limited access are being ignored more and more. Unlike in Scotland were the land reform act gave greater rights of access for wild campers, England seems to be heading in the opposite direction.


----------



## Val54 (Jul 7, 2021)

Fisherman said:


> When I first read this act it was clear that it was full of ambiguity, lacking in clarity and directed towards travellers. But my concern is this could lead to changes that would affect wild camping in England. In England it seems that landowners are becoming more empowered and the public who wish to have limited access are being ignored more and more. Unlike in Scotland were the land reform act gave greater rights of access for wild campers, England seems to be heading in the opposite direction.


Perhaps we need a motorhome equivalent to the 1932 Kinder mass trespass to get some attention .............


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

Val54 said:


> Perhaps we need a motorhome equivalent to the 1932 Kinder mass trespass to get some attention .............


Snake Pass maybe, then the papers would all make the reference


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

Tookey said:


> If you are interested in the message I sent;
> 
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> 
> ...


The reply I received;

'Dear Guy, thank you for your email – and for your appreciation of Friends of Quantock and the work they do. The “no overnight camping” signs in parking areas on the Quantocks are provided and installed by the AONB Service where the landowners who own the parking areas have indicated this is their policy. As you are no doubt aware some overnight users have a harmful impact (unlike you) in respect of waste/litter particularly and this is not considered an acceptable burden for the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.'

I will post my reply shortly


----------



## Val54 (Jul 7, 2021)

That's an interesting reply which suggests the relevant local authorities have passed bye-laws rather than any action by FoQ themselves. If you intend to pursue it further, I would be writing to the local authority where this car park is located with a FOI request for chapter and verse on the when and how the bye-law was made. A quick search of the minutes of the ANOB Joint Management Committee suggests that illegal raves may well be one of the reasons for the overnight ban.

The online minutes are here ...








						JAC Papers | Quantock Hills AONB
					






					www.quantockhills.com


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

My reply, as you can see I didn't think continuing with the legality of the ban was appropriate;

Chris,

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my query, it is appreciated.

With regards to overnight campers who do not act responsibly I sympathise with the AONB Service and landowners, I assure you that it frustrates me equally. Their actions directly damage the reputation of motorhomers and it is due to their poor behaviour that responsible campers are restricted or denied overnight access to areas of beauty such as the Quantock Hills. 

Could I please ask you to consider the following and if you see merit then maybe share it with your colleagues and fellow organisations. Below is a link to the 'Stay the Night' website, an idea that is presently being trialled by Forestry and Land Scotland and the feedback so far is positive. You can digest it at your leisure if you wish but very briefly it is a scheme which allows self contained motorhomes to stay overnight in carparks at a reasonable cost.

https://forestryandland.gov.scot/staythenight

Presently the 'no overnight camping' in the Quantocks does not benefit either party, your charity and related organisations miss out on a source of visitors and potentially an income and myself and fellow responsible motorhome campers miss out on enjoying the beautiful surroundings for no more than a day visit. I am aware that ticket machines would not be appropriate in the Quantocks but maybe the opportunity to pay or donate on line could be considered.

I suspect you are still experiencing poor camping behaviour by some of those that choose to ignore the prohibitive signs, I ask you to consider if the right parties are being targeted by the blanket ban.


Thank you for your time and best wishes

Kind regards

Guy


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

'Like' this post if you want to see any further correspondence if it takes place so I can gauge interest please


----------



## Tookey (Jul 7, 2021)

Val54 said:


> That's an interesting reply which suggests the relevant local authorities have passed bye-laws rather than any action by FoQ themselves. If you intend to pursue it further, I would be writing to the local authority where this car park is located with a FOI request for chapter and verse on the when and how the bye-law was made. A quick search of the minutes of the ANOB Joint Management Committee suggests that illegal raves may well be one of the reasons for the overnight ban.
> 
> The online minutes are here ...
> 
> ...


To be honest and slightly ashamed but between work and home commitments I suspect I have not got the time to pursue this with the commitment I suspect it would require. I will keep up communication with Chris if he chooses to.


----------



## st3v3 (Jul 7, 2021)

Tookey said:


> The reply I received;
> 
> 'Dear Guy, thank you for your email – and for your appreciation of Friends of Quantock and the work they do. The “no overnight camping” signs in parking areas on the Quantocks are provided and installed by the AONB Service where the landowners who own the parking areas have indicated this is their policy. As you are no doubt aware some overnight users have a harmful impact (unlike you) in respect of waste/litter particularly and this is not considered an acceptable burden for the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.'
> 
> I will post my reply shortly



My reply, great, I see that you understand a minority spoil things so I shall carry on stopping for the odd night and I'll do my best to police the idiots. Do you have a number I can call when my comments fall on deaf ears?


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 9, 2021)

The thing is – historically authorities responsible for instituting byelaws, TROs, Off Street Parking Orders and other restrictions don’t always abide by the rules for making restrictions. I know all the arguments about not stopping where we aren’t wanted and all that. And we’ve seen during the pandemic these powerful people not feeling bound by rules. They don’t need to if they’re never challenged.  That's their power.

Remember the guy who was moved on in the middle of the night because he had the effrontery to park in a layby – near Buttermere I think? https://wildcamping.co.uk/threads/1970s-bylaw-used-to-ban-camping-in-lake-district.81887/

The police officer moving him on quoted a Lake District Authority bylaw. Not everyone believed the byelaw existed so someone asked the Lake District authority under the FoI for sight of this byelaw.

Of course, it didn’t exist, as the questioner thought, but that didn’t stop the Lake District spouting what can only be described as a load of lies.

If you believe this  body with the authority to make byelaws then you’ll believe that the only legal place for us to park is in a formal campsite. That’s what they said. Formal campsite only.

The FoI number is there if anyone wanted to question the authority further. They took 16 days to look up the accurate answer. There’s no byelaw but it’s the law of the land. Unspecified law of the land. Formal campsites only. Move when we tell you.   You'll never know the byelaw doesn't exist, will you?

If we give authority an inch then they’ll take every opportunity to use those inches. Do you see they didn’t answer the FoI query simply by saying the byelaw didn’t exist; they had to try justifying themselves. I’d recommend signing the petition.


----------



## trevskoda (Jul 9, 2021)

Looks like he was not doing anything wrong then, vh taxed and ins plus only resting and not camping.


----------



## Debroos (Jul 9, 2021)

maureenandtom said:


> The thing is – historically authorities responsible for instituting byelaws, TROs, Off Street Parking Orders and other restrictions don’t always abide by the rules for making restrictions. I know all the arguments about not stopping where we aren’t wanted and all that. And we’ve seen during the pandemic these powerful people not feeling bound by rules. They don’t need to if they’re never challenged.  That's their power.
> 
> Remember the guy who was moved on in the middle of the night because he had the effrontery to park in a layby – near Buttermere I think? https://wildcamping.co.uk/threads/1970s-bylaw-used-to-ban-camping-in-lake-district.81887/
> 
> ...


----------



## Val54 (Jul 9, 2021)

maureenandtom said:


> The thing is – historically authorities responsible for instituting byelaws, TROs, Off Street Parking Orders and other restrictions don’t always abide by the rules for making restrictions. I know all the arguments about not stopping where we aren’t wanted and all that. And we’ve seen during the pandemic these powerful people not feeling bound by rules. They don’t need to if they’re never challenged.  That's their power.
> 
> Remember the guy who was moved on in the middle of the night because he had the effrontery to park in a layby – near Buttermere I think? https://wildcamping.co.uk/threads/1970s-bylaw-used-to-ban-camping-in-lake-district.81887/
> 
> ...



This is where our lack of a representative body means we continue to lose out. Clearly the LDNP response isn't factually correct. A representative body could have sought legal advice on the correct position and the counsel's opinion could have been shared with the relevant Chief Constable and the LDNO advising them to train their staff. I know that would probably spark a move to create a by-law but at least that could be monitored by a representative body and appropriate representations made.


----------

