# Attitude to 'No Overnight' Signs



## Older Gurna (Oct 3, 2013)

Just wondered what the consensus was on parking up when see-ing  a 'No Overnight Parking' sign?
Not talking 'bout those with quoted by-laws & TRO's, just the usual B/S ones We see all the time.
I'm guessing there's 2 camps (pun!!)....Those who ignore 'em as they impinge on our freedom & those who abide 'cos of an awareness of public perception re. Motorhomers...........
Discuss?............


----------



## daisymini (Oct 3, 2013)

Im still quite new to all this and i would abide by all signs being an honest person....:lol-053: but i guess the more practice i get the more ill know which ones to ignore


----------



## vwalan (Oct 3, 2013)

do a search there are loads of threads on it . 
i ignore them .


----------



## maingate (Oct 3, 2013)

As responsible wildcampers we all respect these signs put up by responsible Local Councillors.

Nuff said.


----------



## Older Gurna (Oct 3, 2013)

maingate said:


> As responsible wildcampers we all respect these signs put up by responsible Local Councillors.
> 
> Nuff said.




...Is this sarcasm?..................


----------



## dave docwra (Oct 3, 2013)

Older Gurna said:


> ...Is this sarcasm?..................



Sounds like wisdom to me..


----------



## vwalan (Oct 3, 2013)

what norman wisdom


----------



## Firefox (Oct 3, 2013)

I just ignore the signs. They are only advisory anyway.

A sign exhorting you to stay at some rip-off campsite is advisory too, but would you necessarily follow the advice?


----------



## Smaug (Oct 3, 2013)

It depends on the possible/ probable consequences. Each spot is different & must be assessed as you find it. 

SWMBO gets nervous if she sees a sign, sometimes I don't point them out, sometimes neither of us see them until we leave, sometimes we are tired enough to not give a damn. Often places with signs are places like car parks, where I might not want to stop anyway. I have been known to park directly in front of them so no-one else knows the sign is there.


----------



## FULL TIMER (Oct 3, 2013)

I don't do so many long journey's these days but in the past when I used to head down to Torquay on a Friday night after a day's work  If I was tired and saw a suitable place to get an hours kip I didn't care whether there were signs or not , no copper in his right mind would send a tired driver on his /her way , in fact one night a copper pulled up had a chat a got a flask of coffee out, another year the coppers were directing cars into layby's /service area's and handing out hot drinks and leaflets, they had a tiredness kills campaign on at the time


----------



## NeilyG (Oct 4, 2013)

Just wondered if anyone has been forcibly removed from a no overnight spot. I.e. Has it led to the police being involved and insisting that you leave?


----------



## Older Gurna (Oct 4, 2013)

Firefox said:


> I just ignore the signs. They are only advisory anyway.
> 
> A sign exhorting you to stay at some rip-off campsite is advisory too, but would you necessarily follow the advice?



No M8....even when  Ol'Bill 'advises' moving to a named site...
Having said that tho'...Last w/e...on a campsite....This w/e....on a campsite...(Thanks tho'!!!)....Maybe I'm just getting too old for all the 'interaction'!!!

Smaug:- Spot on re. the O/H!!


----------



## Older Gurna (Oct 4, 2013)

NeilyG said:


> Just wondered if anyone has been forcibly removed from a no overnight spot. I.e. Has it led to the police being involved and insisting that you leave?



They can't insist....they just start the usual interminable stupid questions!! eg. 'Is this Your Van sir?'.....'Is this Your Wife?' (Seriously!!! Norfolk's finest!!)...'Is this a number or a letter?' (on number plate...) Prob. hoping You'll give in & re-locate to the 'suggested' camp-site!!


----------



## FULL TIMER (Oct 4, 2013)

NeilyG said:


> Just wondered if anyone has been forcibly removed from a no overnight spot. I.e. Has it led to the police being involved and insisting that you leave?



Not really, but they did advise me once that I would be better off in the next layby as it was set back further off the road with trees/hedge between, mind you I suppose that the second layby might have been off their patch but I was glad of the advice, went for a quick hours kip around 10pm and woke up in daylight next morning.


----------



## FULL TIMER (Oct 4, 2013)

Older Gurna said:


> They can't insist....they just start the usual interminable stupid questions!! eg. 'Is this Your Van sir?'.....'Is this Your Wife?' (Seriously!!! Norfolk's finest!!)...'Is this a number or a letter?' (on number plate...) Prob. hoping You'll give in & re-locate to the 'suggested' camp-site!!



If you are ever over near Gt Yarmouth / Caister don't bother roughing it head here  Motor Homes this is what we need more of, staff are real friendly and helpfull


----------



## Tony Lee (Oct 4, 2013)

You lot don't know when you are well off.

Just for your amusement

Welcome to wild-camping Argentinian-style
The softies back home go on about all the trials and tribulations suffered at the hands of Australian officialdom and Caravan park owners, but here is a whole different ballgame.

Second night out from Buenos Aires - wild camping in a nice stand of Australian Eucalyptus trees well off the main road - had just settled into bed when there was a blinding light outside and a blip on the siren and shouting - in Spanish of course. Obviously a police car so cracked the side door and poked my head out to see a rambo wannabe, but obviously suffering a nervous breakdown, dancing and prancing from one side of a tree to the other, shouting his head off and waving a riot gun - stockless shotgun - all around the place while his offsider manned the 8" searchlight back at the car - while clutching a revolver and at least pointing it at the ground.

If it hadn't been to stupidly hilarious it would have been quite serious.


Anyway, I swung straight in to my usual cranky old grumpy barstard routine - "what do you think you are doing, We were asleep, why do you wake us up for nothing Put the gun down, turn off the light etc etc etc"
The idiot with the shotgun stepped back a couple of paces and the bloke at the car switched to limited English "out, out, show hands etc etc" so I shouted even louder "no chance - not coming out until you get rid of the guns and put the light out - and anybloody way, I've only got socks on and my pyjamas and you can see I have nothing in my hands" and slid the door closed a bit for emphasis.

Anyway, after a couple of minutes of total stalemate and lots of mutually incomprehensible shouting, the keystone kops finally realised they weren't going to get anywhere until they acted a bit more normally and DID put their guns in the car - or at least out of sight - and did swing the spotlight away.

On a roll, I said "not proper policemen - no uniforms!!" Boss man said "I boss, no need uniform" and rambo grabbed the cuffs of his pants and yanked upwards so hard I thought he was going to lift his feet off the ground "This IS uniform!!!!

Then "passaport, passaport" so I countered "show ID first or no passport" so rambo nearly ripped his pocket off in his eagerness to get his ID card out and handed it over so I carefully inspected it before saying OK, one moment" while I shut the door fully to dig out my passports and handed them over.

Then the usual Ahhhh, Australian ----- kangaroooo.
Sigh!!! Si, si, kangarooooo, si

Then came the attempts to justify their antics -" locals rang up, locals are bad people who will rob you.."
What the!!! Why then would they call the police BEFORE robbing and murdering us???
Then - "we were worried about your safety and wanted to tell you to go into town and stay at the service centre."
What the!!! The only danger were were facing was from rambo and his shotgun. Pull the other leg why don't you. I should add that 10' in front of their blazing high beams and driving lights was a battered Iveco van with foreign plates with the GB and EuroZone symbol clearly visible

Round and round in circles - broken finally by handshakes all-round and they drove off into the night. Betty all the time in bed wondering what troubles I would get her into this time..

Anyway, we did decide that they might send some locals around to hassle us if we stayed so we did go into the next town and stayed at the back of the service station.

Welcome to Argentina


----------



## Wooie1958 (Oct 4, 2013)

We usually adhere to the " No Overnight Parking / Camping " signs for the simple reason that once we`ve settled down we want a peaceful night.

We don`t want to be on edge waiting for the " Knock On The Door " especially if you`ve just heard a vehicle come into where you are parked.

The last thing i want is to start  Arguing / Discussing whether a sign is legal or not because it isn`t backed up by a relevant T.R.O. or has a
Comma / Full Stop missing so that makes it illegal.

We`ve only once been advised to moved by the Police and that was because the place we`d parked was frequented by Boy Racers and we`d
probably not have a good night.

They recommended another layby 1/2 a mile down the road and that we`d be OK there, it wasn`t an order just a recommendation, the choice 
was ours.

We did move and had a very peaceful night and we could at one stage hear the screaming and squealing of engines and tyres in the distance.


----------



## antiquesam (Oct 4, 2013)

My experience is that the police are pretty easy going on overnighting. They see a reasonably respectable outfit and people who aren't going to cause a nuisance and they are helpful. It is the jobsworths from other organisations that want to throw their power around.


----------



## Gee (Oct 4, 2013)

As Smaug said. Location dependent. Some are generalised. In June stayed at Loch Chon Poi which has a no overnighting sign in the car park. Loch Lomond & trossachs National park wardens popped in to say hello. They said they were really only looking for open fires, vandals and buckfast aficionados and were ok with me stopping overnight in a corner of the car park. I got the buckfast out as soon as they were gone. Lol
Whilst on Barra last month. Many of the poi's had no overnighting signs up. This seems due to peeps taking their vehicles further on to the fragile machir/dunes with some lighting fires and staying for up to 6 weeks in the one spot. Again the few numpties spoiling it for good. All was not lost however. I stayed at Scurival campsite owned by Angus John Morrison, a lovely local who charged me £20 for a week with hot showers and kitchen included. No hook up however said I could drive up to the house to charge my batteries if needed. I didn't need it as my solar kept me going. Beautiful spot overlooking a huge stunning sandy beach.


----------



## Robmac (Oct 4, 2013)

Gee said:


> As Smaug said. Location dependent. Some are generalised. In June stayed at *Loch Chon Poi* which has a no overnighting sign in the car park............



I actually thought to myself, what a strange name for a Scottish Loch, sounds more Chinese, then I realised!!!!!


----------



## Wooie1958 (Oct 4, 2013)

antiquesam said:


> My experience is that the police are pretty easy going on overnighting. They see a reasonably respectable outfit and people who aren't going to cause a nuisance and they are helpful. It is the jobsworths from other organisations that want to throw their power around.





I fully agree, our experiences with the Police has been excellent. ( Now i`m off the wanted list ................. LOL )

I also think it`s a lot to do with how you greet them when they come towards you, but maybe that `s down to Old Fashioned Manners sadly in short supply these days.

Been asked a couple of times whether we`d seen a certain vehicle or people pass whilst we was travelling or parked up.

The saddest one was being asked if we`d seen an Elderly Lady that was missing, kept an eye on the local news for the next couple of days and thankfully she was found
later on that evening.

The best was an Officer that spent the best part of an hour ( + 2 brews ) with us, he came in to ask about the DRL`s i`d fitted on our van.

He`d seen us twice during the day and was very impressed with how they looked and worked, so he popped in to ask the make and model of them and also if he could
have a quick look at how they`d been fitted.

He went away a very happy chappy and also told us of a couple of nice quiet places ( already in the POI`s ) we could overnight.


----------



## Sharon the Cat (Oct 4, 2013)

Robmac said:


> I actually thought to myself, what a strange name for a Scottish Loch, sounds more Chinese, then I realised!!!!!



Me too


----------



## Robmac (Oct 4, 2013)

Wooie1958 said:


> ..................I also think it`s a lot to do with how you greet them when they come towards you, but maybe that `s down to Old Fashioned Manners sadly in short supply these days..........................



Fully agree. They're just human beings doing a job, suffering the same daily trials and tribulations as the rest of us. Have a cuppa and a chat and if you do get the odd stickler, just move on, it happens very rarely.


----------



## Sharon the Cat (Oct 4, 2013)

Out of interest we checked out a lot of very promising looking local lay-bys. When still in Herefordshire many of them have an empty pole where the parking limited to 4 hours sign seems to have been _mislaid_.

According to Phill the Cat the lorry drivers have somehow mislaid the signs .


----------



## christine (Oct 4, 2013)

Like Wooie1958, we won't camp where there are forbidding signs, whether they are legal or not. We like to be relaxed and enjoy a few drinks.

Our only time we had a police visit was very recently at Crombie Point near Culross.Although there was a notice saying we were on private MOD property, it was a car park and other folks were parked there. We actually thought the munitions place was redundant as it was supposed to be an emergency exit but it was very overgrown. We did see the cctv but again thought it was dead. We spent a peaceful night and were enjoying breakfast in bed when a police car drew up and explained we were on private property and had been on camera all night.He was very nice when we said we would be moving within the hour and told us to enjoy our holiday.We must have been the most interesting event in years for the cctv watchers!!!


----------



## Jean Genie (Oct 4, 2013)

christine said:


> Like Wooie1958, we won't camp where there are forbidding signs, whether they are legal or not. We like to be relaxed and enjoy a few drinks.
> 
> Our only time we had a police visit was very recently at Crombie Point near Culross.Although there was a notice saying we were on private MOD property, it was a car park and other folks were parked there. We actually thought the munitions place was redundant as it was supposed to be an emergency exit but it was very overgrown. We did see the cctv but again thought it was dead. We spent a peaceful night and were enjoying breakfast in bed when a police car drew up and explained we were on private property and had been on camera all night.He was very nice when we said we would be moving within the hour and told us to enjoy our holiday.*We must have been the most interesting event in years for the cctv watchers!!!*



Do feel free to expand on this.. :shag:


----------



## Sharon the Cat (Oct 4, 2013)

We've so far spent a night in a rally field and one in a pub car park, so I can hardly speak from experience.
If there were signs I would not be able to ignore them, it would make me too nervous.


----------



## christine (Oct 4, 2013)

Jean Genie, I was being slightly sarcastic, all we did was go for a walk then sat in as it was too windy for being outside.


----------



## frontslide (Oct 4, 2013)

Sign or no sign i still use the good old fashioned common sense.


----------



## Jean Genie (Oct 4, 2013)

christine said:


> Jean Genie, I was being slightly sarcastic, all we did was go for a walk then sat in as it was too windy for being outside.



Likewise.


----------



## Firefox (Oct 4, 2013)

Older Gurna said:


> They can't insist....they just start the usual interminable stupid questions!! eg. 'Is this Your Van sir?'.....'Is this Your Wife?' (Seriously!!! Norfolk's finest!!)...'Is this a number or a letter?' (on number plate...) Prob. hoping You'll give in & re-locate to the 'suggested' camp-site!!



True, they don't have any power to move you on highways land eg Layby (or Council car parks sometimes) unless you are obstructing the highway or a crime is being committed. 

But they do have powers to be awkward if you rub them up the wrong way. It's not too difficult for them to find something wrong with most vehicles.

It's never happened to me, but I would cooperate with them, up the point of actually moving there and then. I'd say I was too tired to drive but would comply with their request first thing in the morning.


----------



## Dezi (Oct 4, 2013)

Wooie1958 said:


> We usually adhere to the " No Overnight Parking / Camping " signs for the simple reason that once we`ve settled down we want a peaceful night.
> 
> We don`t want to be on edge waiting for the " Knock On The Door " especially if you`ve just heard a vehicle come into where you are parked.
> 
> ...



Exactly, why would anybody to do otherwise?

Plenty of available places without parking on restricted areas and annoying the authorities.

Dezi


----------



## Jean Genie (Oct 4, 2013)

Agreed, but it is a bit odd the police clearing a place for the boy racers indulgence??

If they are aware of such goings on it is their duty to put a stop to them.

Sorry, off topic I know, but.


----------



## Sparks (Oct 4, 2013)

Post Deleted


----------



## mark61 (Oct 4, 2013)

They have to practice their PIT manoeuvre somewhere.


----------



## ricc (Oct 4, 2013)

Jean Genie said:


> Agreed, but it is a bit odd the police clearing a place for the boy racers indulgence??
> 
> If they are aware of such goings on it is their duty to put a stop to them.
> 
> Sorry, off topic I know, but.



may well be the police  tolerate it in an out of the way carpark, (which may well be privatly owned so so the police  cant stop it off there own bat anyway) rather than have them thrashing round a housing estate.


----------



## Smaug (Oct 4, 2013)

NeilyG said:


> Just wondered if anyone has been forcibly removed from a no overnight spot. I.e. Has it led to the police being involved and insisting that you leave?



Yes, and I have told the tale before. It was in the Peak District & on a lonely moorland single track road, there was an old quarry, not large, but big enough to reverse into well off the road. Anyway, we had tea & put the kids to bed, during which time a single large car went past. At around 10pm, just as we were about to go to bed ourselves, a police car pulled up & told us we couldn't stop there. I politely asked what the problem was & pointed out that the children were asleep in bed - not entirely true as damn plod had woken them up. "It's a National park," he said "No camping allowed, you have to go to a proper site" - but there were no signs saying no camping, with or without TRO. However, I suppose that it is possible that there is a TRO governing the whole of a national Park.

Of course we didn't know of any sites, so he agreed to lead us to one (where he seemed to be on good terms with the owner). I doubt he had any real power to move us on, but as already pointed out, it isn't a good idea to annoy the Fuzz so we went along with their instructions. I might protest a little more strongly next time, but with wife & kids on board it isn't sensible to wind up the Police late at night.

There is no way they could have known we were there unless someone told them, so I can only assume that the sole car that passed had reported us & that he played golf with the local Chief Con (or was in the same lodge!) My guess is that we were unlucky to be spotted by a local land owner with a fear of Travellers &  a bit of clout.


----------



## richardstubbs (Oct 4, 2013)

Smaug said:


> "It's a National park," he said "No camping allowed, you have to go to a proper site"



This is, obviously, complete nonsense. There's a common misconception that a 'national park' belongs to the nation. In fact, it's really little more than a planning restriction. All the land in a national park belongs to the individual landowners (albeit some is common or crown land) just like anywhere else, and it's up to those landowners to decide whether or not to allow camping. We live just across the river from the Snowdonia national park and a few of our friends live in it. They own their houses and gardens just like anyone else, and would probably be ill-inclined to let random strangers park! But they can allow it if they want, just like anywhere else.

I strongly suspect that the quarry was private land - all those round here are, they belong to a bloke called John -  and maybe the car you saw belonged to the landowner, who phoned his mate in the police. As we know, the police don't have the power to move people from private land without a court order, so I guess he just made something up.


----------



## Smaug (Oct 4, 2013)

richardstubbs said:


> This is, obviously, complete nonsense. There's a common misconception that a 'national park' belongs to the nation. In fact, it's really little more than a planning restriction. All the land in a national park belongs to the individual landowners (albeit some is common or crown land) just like anywhere else, and it's up to those landowners to decide whether or not to allow camping. We live just across the river from the Snowdonia national park and a few of our friends live in it. They own their houses and gardens just like anyone else, and would probably be ill-inclined to let random strangers park! But they can allow it if they want, just like anywhere else.
> 
> I strongly suspect that the quarry was private land - all those round here are, they belong to a bloke called John -  and maybe the car you saw belonged to the landowner, who phoned his mate in the police. As we know, the police don't have the power to move people from private land without a court order, so I guess he just made something up.



That's pretty much what I thought too, but getting stroppy with him could have lead to complications, not that there was anything wrong with the van or our paperwork, he could still have given us a lot of grief over the next few hours "checking". It is one event in over 10 years of wilding, so it hasn't fazed us.


----------



## richardstubbs (Oct 4, 2013)

Smaug said:


> That's pretty much what I thought too, but getting stroppy with him could have lead to complications, not that there was anything wrong with the van or our paperwork, he could still have given us a lot of grief over the next few hours "checking". It is one event in over 10 years of wilding, so it hasn't fazed us.



Definitely, I would have moved too. Most of our wilding has been done in France, but some here. That's why I've joined this forum. I want to think that people are happy with us being there or I'm not really happy myself.


----------



## Firefox (Oct 4, 2013)

> Definitely, I would have moved too. Most of our wilding has been done in France, but some here. That's why I've joined this forum. I want to think that people are happy with us being there or I'm not really happy myself.​




The thing is that some NIMBY 1/2 a mile down the road will complain to the authorities about you being in a layby. It's not that they aren't "happy" - how could it even affect them 1/2 a mile away??

It's simply they regard it as their patch, they are professional complainers, probably retired and nothing better to do all day than peep out of their curtains and take the dog for a walk, notebook and camera in hand. I don't see why we should bow down to this kind of idiot, and do whatever they command to suit their small little lives.


----------



## richardstubbs (Oct 4, 2013)

Firefox said:


> The thing is that some NIMBY 1/2 a mile down the road will complain to the authorities about you being in a layby. It's not that they aren't "happy" - how could it even affect them 1/2 a mile away??
> 
> It's simply they regard it as their patch, they are professional complainers, probably retired and nothing better to do all day than peep out of their curtains and take the dog for a walk, notebook and camera in hand. I don't see why we should bow down to this kind of idiot, and do whatever they command to suit their small little lives.



True enough, but there's nothing to be done about that. I've even seen it happen on official 'Aires de stationnement camping-cars' in France. It's envy I guess. But I don't expect that the police generally act on that kind of complaint either - I'm sure they get as bored as the rest of us with professional complainers.

What I meant about the forum is that it's about places where people have stopped and not had hassle. That seems good to me - we're getting our 5 month old baby used to motorhoming on campsites first, but once we decide to go wilding I want places I know are OK. In the absence of 'aires' this seems like a good way.

Richard.


----------



## Smaug (Oct 4, 2013)

Firefox said:


> The thing is that some NIMBY 1/2 a mile down the road will complain to the authorities about you being in a layby. It's not that they aren't "happy" - how could it even affect them 1/2 a mile away??
> 
> It's simply they regard it as their patch, they are professional complainers, probably retired and nothing better to do all day than peep out of their curtains and take the dog for a walk, notebook and camera in hand. I don't see why we should bow down to this kind of idiot, and do whatever they command to suit their small little lives.



oooh, nice rant, but there was no-one "1/2 a mile down the road". 

This was a remote moorland lane, it had to be the landowner complaining after spotting us on his way home from the club or lodge. Jo public would not have the clout to get us moved, but someone who owned half a moor could - he may even have been a local magistrate, who knows, but aunty Vera in her bungalow would simply be ignored if she complained about a van parked in a lay-by. 

It also happened in the mid 80's, the kids mentioned have kids of their own these days & borrow the current van for their holidays.


----------



## richardstubbs (Oct 4, 2013)

Smaug said:


> ...he may even have been a local magistrate...



Might have been the copper on his way to work :idea:


----------



## Wooie1958 (Oct 4, 2013)

Smaug said:


> the kids mentioned have kids of their own these days & borrow the current van for their holidays.




I`m lucky in that respect my van is over 3,500 Kgs so my kids " Can`t " borrow ours .............................................. LOL

The lad only just misses the date and the daughter is a couple of years over .


----------



## landyrubbertramp (Oct 4, 2013)

Firefox said:


> The thing is that some NIMBY 1/2 a mile down the road will complain to the authorities about you being in a layby. It's not that they aren't "happy" - how could it even affect them 1/2 a mile away??
> 
> It's simply they regard it as their patch, they are professional complainers, probably retired and nothing better to do all day than peep out of their curtains and take the dog for a walk, notebook and camera in hand. I don't see why we should bow down to this kind of idiot, and do whatever they command to suit their small little lives.


 
correct firefox and very well put and the same ppl that don't clean up after their dog types. i think we need to draw a distinction here, parking on private land is a massive difference from a council car park or layby, private property is a mine field so i wouldnot park on private property for that reason im talking re council laybys etc, some ppl have mention that they abide by signs by responsible councls, yet if thier is a sigh that not leagal how is that responsible of the council to try and miss lead ppl on purpose with just an illegal no parking sign, we need to wake up a smell the coffee me thinks, councils are the problem we are where we are so re parking in this country thay duck and dive and no not only show no intrest in the problem of parking they have took negaivtive action to try and not deal with it. if i was a retailer and sold a washing machine that i knew was ilegal trading standards and the law would be broughtupon the retailer yet the council can practivly systematically break the law re parking and to top it off some members think that's resposable???????


----------



## Firefox (Oct 4, 2013)

Glad you liked my rant Smaug  I wasn't referring to any particular incident - just the general case.

As Richard says, if you have a young baby there are other considerations when selecting a place, but as single person or like minded couple will have more freedom in where they stay.

In my defence I will say that I don't park outside peoples houses or where I'll obviously be in the way. I've only got knocked on twice in 20 years of wilding and/or sleeping in cars in all kinds of places, so I think I'm doing most things right, or just very lucky! There's no defence against the professional NIMBY complaint though, whether in a van, car, tent, or even just passing through. That's when you have to stand your ground!


----------



## Jean Genie (Oct 4, 2013)

Firefox said:


> Glad you liked my rant Smaug  I wasn't referring to any particular incident - just the general case.
> 
> As Richard says, if you have a young baby there are other considerations when selecting a place, but as single person or like minded couple will have more freedom in where they stay.
> 
> In my defence I will say that I don't park outside peoples houses or where I'll obviously be in the way. I've only got knocked on twice in 20 years of wilding and/or sleeping in cars in all kinds of places, so I think I'm doing most things right, or just very lucky! There's no defence against the professional NIMBY complaint though, whether in a van, car, tent, or even just passing through. That's when you have to stand your ground!



Farmers who want badger culls may think protestors against said cull are akin to nimbys?

I do not think the cull should happen, but it may be something for you to consider?

These laws are generally not to stop us having a night here and there, more to stop "travellers" landing en masse and trashing places, or protestors upsetting their pristine little baskets.

That's my personal take on it anyway.


----------



## Firefox (Oct 4, 2013)

I agree with your general point, Derek, but not sure farmers think the same way as a NIMBY with regard to badger cull.

Farmers have some legitimate point to make about their livelyhood (if they believe the evidence in favour, which I don't) whereas NIMBYs will complain just because they can. Otherwise - agreed.


----------



## 1807truckman (Oct 7, 2013)

Only once had a knock on the door, we were parked on some rough ground near the entrance to Levant Mine in Cornwall and at 7:30am a National Trust warden knocked on the door to tell us we couldn't park there overnight, amused us no end since we'd been there since 7:00pm  the night before and were just having a cup of tea before moving off, he said can't you see the sign, the sign was on the gate that led to the Mine, we had parked on the opposite side of the road.
We usually use common sense where signs are concerned.


----------



## sagart (Oct 8, 2013)

Oddest I ever had was in the Peak District when a couple suggested my wife and I moved further up the road to a different layby.
We had previosly rejected it as immediately opposite someone's house so I mentioned that.
"Oh" they said,"that's our house, but we have that view all the time"....half an hour after we did moved they came across to the van with a dozen eggs...
Not sure if was a subtle way of discouraging us by making us feel guilty!


----------



## Skatts (Oct 8, 2013)

Personally ,we wouldnt stop anywhere where we felt we were not wanted ( any kind of sign) Regardless of the legalities .
You always get some jobsworth ,miscreant ,who believes that they are well within their rights and in fact doing society a favour by damaging your van in some way ,in order to 'teach you a lesson'or punish you and make you see the error of your ways.


----------



## Smaug (Oct 8, 2013)

sagart said:


> Oddest I ever had was in the Peak District when a couple suggested my wife and I moved further up the road to a different layby.
> We had previosly rejected it as immediately opposite someone's house so I mentioned that.
> "Oh" they said,"that's our house, but we have that view all the time"....half an hour after we did moved they came across to the van with a dozen eggs...
> Not sure if was a subtle way of discouraging us by making us feel guilty!



More likely that they, like most country folk enjoy company as they don't get too much of it. Quite the opposite of city folk & estate dwellers who yearn for peace & quiet. There is also the extra potential security of you occupying the lay-by rather than a ne'r-do-well.



Skatts said:


> Personally ,we wouldnt stop anywhere where we felt we were not wanted ( any kind of sign) Regardless of the legalities .
> You always get some jobsworth ,miscreant ,who believes that they are well within their rights and in fact doing society a favour by damaging your van in some way ,in order to 'teach you a lesson'or punish you and make you see the error of your ways.



While I understand your fears, "ALWAYS" is a bit strong. It hasn't happened to me yet in 20 odd years of wildcamping around the UK. In fact, the only case I remember of it happening to someone on the forum was when parked outside their own house & a neighbour damaged the van. So, provided you are in a "wild" place rather than on a popular seafront (for example) I would say the risk is insignificant.


----------



## jakekelly (Oct 8, 2013)

I 'm of the opinion that as the vehicle is legally on the road eg tax &insured etc.then i can stop anywhere on a public road provided the vehicle does  not contravine any laws by doing so , let common sense prevail, I've used carparks, laybys , harbour walls,pub   & hotel carparks , any where I feel I need to stop for whatever reason and never been asked to move, if I was stopped for the night and was approached by a person in authority , my reply is I have stopped here to rest as I'M very tired and not safe to drive on,as soon as I feel it is safe for me to drive I will . now how long I decide to "OVERNIGHT"is up to me it may be 3 hrs or could be 6 hrs may even be 10 hrs. but be restassured as soon as I feel well enough to drive I will.
any private  place  eg pub or hotel carpark before having a meal & drink, common sense tells you to ask if it will be ok to over night in the carpark . & never been refused if i was refused I would just move to the next one  simples! conclusion who decides what is overnight?:sleep-027::camper::shag::shag:  Do what you want & move on,leave nothing behind, people have better things to do with life (whats left of it )enjoy and wish your approachee (newly made up word ) a good day & a better one tommorow ::: while really thinking hope you trip and fall in that pile of crap ,twist your ankle, your vehicle has a flatire & no spare 3 miles from home & it starts rain , & sorry my mobile fone battery is flat I'll need to sit here for a while so the engine can charge the battery. HAVE A NICE DAY!(night):rabbit::rabbit::lol-053::wave: THATS my ATTITUDE


----------



## maureenandtom (Oct 8, 2013)

One of the problems is that councils have no shame in erecting signs which have no legal backing.  Sometimes, as below, they will tell you, seemingly proudly, that they erect signs which they have no intention of enforcing. 







They sometimes proudly tell you, as above, that they are erected as a deterrent and have no other purpose.  They are immune to criticism that this is misleading;  that motorist should see a roadsign and know it to be binding.   The question "How is the motorist to know which bind him and which do not?" has never yet been answered.

However, if you - as some have done - dispute such signs with the council, then there is not universal support for your actions.   Some will tell you that you must let well alone because of the fear that the council will do something even worse than erect misleading signs.

We need to universally oppose misleading signs.

Anyone receiving a parking ticket anywhere in the North Yorks Council area should use that email above, dispute the penalty and make them prove that the sign they use to justify the penalty is one which does have legal backing - that you have no way of knowing which is advice and which binds you.   That the council's email makes all signs suspect.

  Edit:   Whether this would make an appeal successful I don't know so this is not legal advice but appeals in large numbers would be a sure sign to authority that their signage must be clear and accurate - this sign is binding or this sign is advisory.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Oct 8, 2013)

If there`s a sign up then we will not park there and especially overnight.

As sure as Eggs are Eggs there`s always " One " probably the Local Know It All that will confront you saying " Did you not see the sign ? " etc. etc. etc.

It`s happened to us before ( admittedly a while back ) but, you see the person coming towards you, they stop, look at the sign then look at you, look at the
sign again and then start marching towards you.

When we go away in the van we want as much as possible to enjoy it and feel relaxed especially if we intend to stay the night there.

Have a nice evening meal and then relax by watching some telly / wife does some needlework / have a wander round or just watch the world go by.

The last thing i want is to then start explaining myself to someone that it`s nothing to do with what we are doing there.


----------



## John H (Oct 8, 2013)

I agree with those who say that they wouldn't park where they are not wanted. What is the point in ending up with a brick though the window?

As for Council's being deceptive if they put up NO Overnighting signs without TROs to back them up, well what is wrong with a Council (or anybody else) putting up a sign saying they don't want something? If you put up a sign saying "Beware of the Dog" and you don't haver one, you won't get prosecuted for trying to deter burglars. I'd far rather that there were signs meant to discourage that we can make our own judgements about than we forced Council's into a position where they are more likely to establish TROs and enforce penalties. Seems common sense to me.


----------



## maureenandtom (Oct 8, 2013)

John H said:


> I agree with those who say that they wouldn't park where they are not wanted. What is the point in ending up with a brick though the window?
> 
> As for Council's being deceptive if they put up NO Overnighting signs without TROs to back them up, well what is wrong with a Council (or anybody else) putting up a sign saying they don't want something? If you put up a sign saying "Beware of the Dog" and you don't haver one, you won't get prosecuted for trying to deter burglars. I'd far rather that there were signs meant to discourage that we can make our own judgements about than we forced Council's into a position where they are more likely to establish TROs and enforce penalties. Seems common sense to me.




I think there is a world of difference between a householder putting up a Beware of the Dog sign which is advisory, and is  clear that it is advisory, and a misleading  council sign giving all the appearance of being mandatory.  John, you are an ex-councillor and you and I will never agree on this.  Of course you want the freedom to mislead.  We should not have to make our own judgements - we should know that the sign is binding or it is not binding;  we should not have to decide.

Wooie, you have put your finger precisely on the spot.  Both you and the person glancing at a council erected road sign are justified in thinking that it is mandatory.  He is justified if he thinks you are a ne'er do well law-breaker. 

My opinion, which I will continue to have, is that so long as we allow councils  to mislead then we will have councils allowed to mislead.  And, maybe it won't stop at traffic rules.   We all must have heard of councils using anit-terror legislation inappropriately.  You let them get away with such things at our peril.  Not only your own - our's.

There is a famous saying, but not famous enough for me to remember who said it, that for evil to flourish it is only necessary that good men do nothing.   Too many of us do nothing


----------



## Smaug (Oct 8, 2013)

Bricks thro windows & busybodies pointing out signs? Well, the bricks are pretty alarming, but has it actually ever happened to anyone & where? Busybodies? very unlikely at a wild spot as I said before.

I repeat; every location has to be judged in it's own right. No Overnighting on a busy town promenade IS likely to be backed up by a TRO & warden action or vigilante behaviour so should be avoided, a lonely Forestry Commission picnic site isn't, so I would happily ignore the signs. Just two, fairly extreme, examples of how I judge overnight spots. 

It amazes me that people need blanket rules rather than making a reasoned judgement for themselves - but who am I to criticise, as long as you are happy, I shall be too.


----------



## Deleted member 37170 (Oct 8, 2013)

John H said:


> I agree with those who say that they wouldn't park where they are not wanted. What is the point in ending up with a brick though the window?
> 
> As for Council's being deceptive if they put up NO Overnighting signs without TROs to back them up, well what is wrong with a Council (or anybody else) putting up a sign saying they don't want something? If you put up a sign saying "Beware of the Dog" and you don't haver one, you won't get prosecuted for trying to deter burglars. I'd far rather that there were signs meant to discourage that we can make our own judgements about than we forced Council's into a position where they are more likely to establish TROs and enforce penalties. Seems common sense to me.



It's most likely common sense to you because you have none!!!

To compare a "Beware of the dog" sign to a Council backed publicly funded 'no legality' sign "No overnight Camping"  just shows me that you are a truly missed member of Dave Sutch's political party.


----------



## John H (Oct 8, 2013)

maureenandtom said:


> I think there is a world of difference between a householder putting up a Beware of the Dog sign which is advisory, and is  clear that it is advisory, and a misleading  council sign giving all the appearance of being mandatory.  John, you are an ex-councillor and you and I will never agree on this.  Of course you want the freedom to mislead.  We should not have to make our own judgements - we should know that the sign is binding or it is not binding;  we should not have to decide.



Not misleading at all if you know the rules. If there is no reference to a TRO on the sign then it is not a mandatory one. Simple.


----------



## John H (Oct 8, 2013)

Bopper said:


> It's most likely common sense to you because you have none!!!
> 
> To compare a "Beware of the dog" sign to a Council backed publicly funded 'no legality' sign "No overnight Camping"  just shows me that you are a truly missed member of Dave Sutch's political party.



Dear, oh dear! And you say I have no common sense!


----------



## ricc (Oct 8, 2013)

road signs that have no legal backing erected by councils is only the tip of the iceberg , its got to the state now that whenever a council tells you you cant do something you have to ask the simple question  "which law is that then"  in many cases they are just blustering knowing that joe public is not a legal expert in everything and many will beleive what they are told by an "official"

it happens all the time with planning....the little guys beleive the half truths the council spouts , and the big developers apear to get away with murder cos they know the law as well or better than the councils.


another classic from what 10 years or so ago was the campaign to stop parents taking kids on holiday during the school term.   councils, government and the media all spouting "take your child out of school for a holiday and you will be prosecuted. for truancy"      fact is there is no law that allows the council or anyone else to prosecute parents for taking their children on one holiday in term time.    we did it whilst ours were in primary school.... had a lot of letters from the school and the council and it was all bluster and downright lies.  you just have to ask the council which law youre breaking then google whatever answere they come up with.

last time i checked a council official misrepresenting the law was a criminal offence.... but good luck with actually getting one prosecuted or even disciplined for it.      chief education officers get to take early retirement, ombudsmen wont do anything until the county solicitor has finished an internal investigation, for which which he has no time limit, etc.


----------



## John H (Oct 8, 2013)

ricc said:


> road signs that have no legal backing erected by councils is only the tip of the iceberg , its got to the state now that whenever a council tells you you cant do something you have to ask the simple question  "which law is that then"  in many cases they are just blustering knowing that joe public is not a legal expert in everything and many will beleive what they are told by an "official"
> 
> it happens all the time with planning....the little guys beleive the half truths the council spouts , and the big developers apear to get away with murder cos they know the law as well or better than the councils.
> 
> last time i checked a council official misrepresenting the law was a criminal offence.... but good luck with actually getting one prosecuted or even disciplined for it.      chief education officers get to take early retirement, ombudsmen wont do anything until the county solicitor has finished an internal investigation, for which which he has no time limit, etc.



I agree - which is why it is much more fruitful for us to know what the law is and act accordingly rather than force Councils into a situation where they are more likely to bring in more legally-backed signs.

But you have got the last bit wrong. A notice saying simply "No Overnight Parking" is not misrepresenting any law. If they claim they can fine you for it, then that would be misrepresenting the law and there have been several successful prosecutions of Councils for so-doing.


----------



## Sharon the Cat (Oct 8, 2013)

john h said:


> if there is no reference to a tro on the sign then it is not a mandatory one.



tro ???


----------



## Wooie1958 (Oct 8, 2013)

Wooie1958 said:


> If there`s a sign up then we will not park there and especially overnight.
> 
> As sure as Eggs are Eggs there`s always " One " probably the Local Know It All that will confront you saying " Did you not see the sign ? " etc. etc. etc.
> 
> ...






My post was more aimed at the likes of Whitby, Scarborough and other possibly seaside towns.

In a remote Forestry Commission Car Park it`s totally different and i would probably stay there.


----------



## spigot (Oct 8, 2013)

If I see a notice that states "No Motorhomes" or "No Overnight Parking", I leave well alone.

But recently I have been making use of the good weather & have been touring the east coast, Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex & noticed "Pay & Display" car parks with notices "Free Parking 6pm to 8am" & "No Overnight Sleeping"

To me this was an invitation to stay, I could be an insomniac, parking enforcement has gone home & the old bill don't want to know unless someone complains, even then I wonder if they bother.

We spent a few nights in some nice grass seafront car parks & had no trouble at all.


----------



## Smaug (Oct 8, 2013)

Sharon the Cat said:


> tro ???



Traffic Regulatory Order; Councils have to apply for them & must specify EXACTLY what is banned. That may then leave some wriggle room if you don't quite meet their specification. Basically it is a lot of hassle for them with uncertain outcomes if it isn't done properly & you know how so many Council employees like hard, accurate work.


----------



## Deleted member 37170 (Oct 8, 2013)

spigot said:


> If I see a notice that states "No Motorhomes" or "No Overnight Parking", I leave well alone.
> 
> But recently I have been making use of the good weather & have been touring the east coast, Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex & noticed "Pay & Display" car parks with notices "Free Parking 6pm to 8am" & "No Overnight Sleeping"
> 
> ...



We too have spent many nights, not all in one go, at many of Norfolk's car parks. We have been told that we shouldn't park there overnight once and this was last year in Hunstanton.  Parking man came up to my window about 8.45am, I was in the cab listening to my music. "You really shouldn't park here overnight" he says. I reply that I have paid for my ticket. "There is a sign that say's no sleeping or camping overnight" he says. I say, you know that the sign is only a request don't you and you really have no power to stop me. "We get complaints from the locals and I have to come and tell you but as long as you pay and move on by tonight I really could not care less" he said.
We then got into a conversation about the music I was playing and spent the best part of half an hour in amusing and interesting banter. He left with a "Have a safe journey". They know it's only bluff. Where was this car park you ask? In Hunstanton council office public car park.


----------



## landyrubbertramp (Oct 8, 2013)

John H said:


> I agree with those who say that they wouldn't park where they are not wanted. What is the point in ending up with a brick though the window?
> 
> As for Council's being deceptive if they put up NO Overnighting signs without TROs to back them up, well what is wrong with a Council (or anybody else) putting up a sign saying they don't want something? If you put up a sign saying "Beware of the Dog" and you don't haver one, you won't get prosecuted for trying to deter burglars. I'd far rather that there were signs meant to discourage that we can make our own judgements about than we forced Council's into a position where they are more likely to establish TROs and enforce penalties. Seems common sense to me.



great if they are not leagl and are trying to discourage lets have no blacks in this village sign or muslims while we are at it shall we, with all due respect their is no logic to your message jhn councils wont waste one second in stopping a small business guy running a corner shop from letting him put a sign on the pavement or council soon come on the radio when ppl put fly posters up, as per my earlier post the council putting up ileagl signs and knowing they are is poor at best


----------



## MATS (Oct 8, 2013)

I have seen picture signs saying no tents and no caravans - great..... motorhomes ok.


----------



## Older Gurna (Oct 8, 2013)

MATS said:


> I have seen picture signs saying no tents and no caravans - great..... motorhomes ok.







Yep, We've now got emotional blackmail to contend with too! Don't sleep in a van 'cos You'll upset the bunnies!!!
('Baby Dolphins??!...Go on.....don't be a c.......!')


----------



## Seannachie (Oct 8, 2013)

Older Gurna said:


>



I'm okay then, because I never park ON forests though I have parked IN them. :wacko:


----------



## Older Gurna (Oct 8, 2013)

...& I missed the 'on the forest'!!! Still, I'm assuming that cute cartoons are used instead of writing for a reason......


----------



## Smaug (Oct 8, 2013)

And how does sleeping in a camper cause a fire? is it just the red hot angry bunnies self-immolating?


----------



## Derf (Oct 8, 2013)

In order to enforce any 'no Overnight Parking' signs / rules, surely there must first be a legal definition of 'Overnight'. If i pull up somewhere at 3 am and have some kip until 8 - 9 am, is that 'overnight'? (Especially in the summer when it starts getting light around half 3).

  If anyone knocks your van while you're parked up somewhere, simply tell them you're not staying or haven't been there over night.


----------



## ricc (Oct 8, 2013)

John H said:


> I agree - which is why it is much more fruitful for us to know what the law is and act accordingly rather than force Councils into a situation where they are more likely to bring in more legally-backed signs.
> 
> .



i read that as you  suggesting that its ok for councils to put up misleading signs because every member of the public should be conversant with the content of every law that might apply to every sign the council erects... imho your totally out of touch with reality.  or as someone else succinctly put it a ravin looney


----------



## MrGaz (Oct 8, 2013)

MATS said:


> I have seen picture signs saying no tents and no caravans - great..... motorhomes ok.



Just like this one at Amble Marina...can this really be taken literally :goodnight:







[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Smaug (Oct 8, 2013)

MrGaz said:


> Just like this one at Amble Marina...can this really be taken literally :goodnight:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It does not refer to any Traffic Regulation Order, so is simply advisory if on Council Land. If on private land it still carries no legal weight, but you could be sued for trespass if they could prove that you had caused any damage.


----------



## John H (Oct 9, 2013)

landyrubbertramp said:


> great if they are not leagl and are trying to discourage lets have no blacks in this village sign or muslims while we are at it shall we, with all due respect their is no logic to your message jhn councils wont waste one second in stopping a small business guy running a corner shop from letting him put a sign on the pavement or council soon come on the radio when ppl put fly posters up, as per my earlier post the council putting up ileagl signs and knowing they are is poor at best



Sorry but there is logic. You are breaking no law if you put a "beware of the dog" sign on your property and a council is breaking no law if they put "No Overnight Stays" on theirs. However, there are laws about discriminating against black people or Muslims - and against fly-posting on other people's property.


----------



## John H (Oct 9, 2013)

ricc said:


> i read that as you  suggesting that its ok for councils to put up misleading signs because every member of the public should be conversant with the content of every law that might apply to every sign the council erects... imho your totally out of touch with reality.  or as someone else succinctly put it a ravin looney



I never said it was ok. In fact in previous discussions on this topic I have said that I am not in favour of such signs. What I pointed out was that it is not illegal for them to do so. Lots of things that are not illegal, I don't approve of. But you don't achieve anything by attacking them for the wrong reason. You also don't achieve anything by forcing others into a position where they DO take measures to legally ban us from parking. 

And you don't have to be conversant with every law that might apply to every sign - all you have to know is that if there is no reference on the sign to a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) then there is no penalty the council can enforce. It is very simple and very straightforward - and very much in touch with reality!


----------



## maureenandtom (Oct 9, 2013)

John H said:


> I never said it was ok. In fact in previous discussions on this topic I have said that I am not in favour of such signs. What I pointed out was that it is not illegal for them to do so. Lots of things that are not illegal, I don't approve of. But you don't achieve anything by attacking them for the wrong reason. You also don't achieve anything by forcing others into a position where they DO take measures to legally ban us from parking.
> 
> And you don't have to be conversant with every law that might apply to every sign - all you have to know is that if there is no reference on the sign to a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) then there is no penalty the council can enforce. It is very simple and very straightforward - and very much in touch with reality!





John H said:


> Not misleading at all if you know the rules. If there is no reference to a TRO on the sign then it is not a mandatory one. Simple.





John H said:


> I agree - which is why it is much more fruitful for us to know what the law is and act accordingly rather than force Councils into a situation where they are more likely to bring in more legally-backed signs.
> But you have got the last bit wrong. A notice saying simply "No Overnight Parking" is not misrepresenting any law. If they claim they can fine you for it, then that would be misrepresenting the law and there have been several successful prosecutions of Councils for so-doing.





ricc said:


> i read that as you  suggesting that its ok for councils to put up misleading signs because every member of the public should be conversant with the content of every law that might apply to every sign the council erects... imho your totally out of touch with reality.  or as someone else succinctly put it a ravin looney



No, John   Not so Simple.

I think this is one the myths we have grown to know and love.  At least, I think it's a myth and I'd like you, John or anybody, to tell me where is the rule that no overnighting signs need to have a TRO reference on them.  No other parking signs, there are several on the road within yards of my front door, need to have a TRO reference.  Not all road signs on my street relate to parking limitations but most are;  some refer to disabled parking, some are one way signs, no left (or right) turn, speed limit and so on, and none have a TRO reference.  

On reflection, none of the on-road signs I see anywhere round here have a TRO reference.  So why should any member of the public expect to see a TRO reference on a roadsign?

Why is a "no overnight parking" sign any different to, say, a "parking limited to 2 hours" sign?  Authoritative reference please, that we may bring it to the notice of a simple public and an even simpler council.


----------



## John H (Oct 9, 2013)

maureenandtom said:


> No, John   Not so Simple.
> 
> I think this is one the myths we have grown to know and love.  At least, I think it's a myth and I'd like you, John or anybody, to tell me where is the rule that no overnighting signs need to have a TRO reference on them.  No other parking signs, there are several on the road within yards of my front door, need to have a TRO reference.  Not all road signs on my street relate to parking limitations but most are;  some refer to disabled parking, some are one way signs, no left (or right) turn, speed limit and so on, and none have a TRO reference.
> 
> ...



There are signs that are statutory and subject to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. To put it simply, these are things like speed limits and other signs that are under the control of central government and they do not need to contain reference to the regulations that control them. What people are talking about in this thread are signs that are put up by local councils - and they do need to have a TRO to back them up if the council wishes to issue penalties.


----------



## Smaug (Oct 9, 2013)

maureenandtom said:


> No, John   Not so Simple.
> 
> I think this is one the myths we have grown to know and love.  At least, I think it's a myth and I'd like you, John or anybody, to tell me where is the rule that no overnighting signs need to have a TRO reference on them.  No other parking signs, there are several on the road within yards of my front door, need to have a TRO reference.  Not all road signs on my street relate to parking limitations but most are;  some refer to disabled parking, some are one way signs, no left (or right) turn, speed limit and so on, and none have a TRO reference.
> 
> ...



To paraphrase John; the Council have regulatory (legal) powers to erect certain signs regulating parking & these are defined in the relevant act.  Those signs have the force of law & defined penalties supporting them. Signs NOT depicted on the relevant paperwork have NO legal authority whatsoever, unless there is a TRO set up defining those signs & their meaning. Check with the Pepipoo website, you will find the links to the authorised signs. There are no signs there that say "No Camping" or "No Overnighting" so they have to be specially authorised by a specific TRO.

I had a bit of a spat with my local council after unintentionally parking in a disabled spot that was not marked by the standard man in a wheelchair symbol & the correct white lines - it eventually transpired that they had created a TRO covering an area of several streets where they used their own non-standard markings "which were less obtrusive in an conservation area". Strangely enough, these less obtrusive signs in this small area generated more revenue from fines than the parking restrictions in the whole of the rest of the town.


----------



## John H (Oct 9, 2013)

Smaug said:


> To paraphrase John; the Council have regulatory (legal) powers to erect certain signs regulating parking & these are defined in the relevant act.  Those signs have the force of law & defined penalties supporting them. Signs NOT depicted on the relevant paperwork have NO legal authority whatsoever, unless there is a TRO set up defining those signs & their meaning. Check with the Pepipoo website, you will find the links to the authorised signs. There are no signs there that say "No Camping" or "No Overnighting" so they have to be specially authorised by a specific TRO.
> 
> I had a bit of a spat with my local council after unintentionally parking in a disabled spot that was not marked by the standard man in a wheelchair symbol & the correct white lines - it eventually transpired that they had created a TRO covering an area of several streets where they used their own non-standard markings "which were less obtrusive in an conservation area". Strangely enough, these less obtrusive signs in this small area generated more revenue from fines than the parking restrictions in the whole of the rest of the town.



Good summary.

I'd be interested to know the outcome of your "spat" because from what you have said it seems that any penalties would be unenforceable in law because of the lack of clearly visible signage (whether or not it was a conservation area).


----------



## Smaug (Oct 9, 2013)

John H said:


> Good summary.
> 
> I'd be interested to know the outcome of your "spat" because from what you have said it seems that any penalties would be unenforceable in law because of the lack of clearly visible signage (whether or not it was a conservation area).



I bottled out because of the TRO which defined the "unobtrusive signage" & use of studs instead of white lines, which made it unlikely I would win in a court case. The problem was that there is not man on wheels or word Disabled painted on the road for you to see as you park & the sign on the post was the same as the time restriction ones & not visible from the driver's seat when correctly parked. The outcome is that unless you actually check THAT sign when you get out of the car, rather than assuming it is the same as all the others, then you don't know you are in a Disabled slot. 

I did write to the local paper & it got printed, but a local shopkeeper commented that it was a disgrace "the places are clearly marked" :raofl: Guess who ain't ever going to visit any of the shops around there again . . .


----------



## maureenandtom (Oct 9, 2013)

John H said:


> Not misleading at all if you know the rules. If there is no reference to a TRO on the sign then it is not a mandatory one. Simple.



Thank you.

And is there also an authoritative reference to where councils can use non-authorised signs if they put a TRO reference beside it?


----------



## John H (Oct 9, 2013)

Smaug said:


> I bottled out because of the TRO which defined the "unobtrusive signage" & use of studs instead of white lines, which made it unlikely I would win in a court case. The problem was that there is not man on wheels or word Disabled painted on the road for you to see as you park & the sign on the post was the same as the time restriction ones & not visible from the driver's seat when correctly parked. The outcome is that unless you actually check THAT sign when you get out of the car, rather than assuming it is the same as all the others, then you don't know you are in a Disabled slot.
> 
> I did write to the local paper & it got printed, but a local shopkeeper commented that it was a disgrace "the places are clearly marked" :raofl: Guess who ain't ever going to visit any of the shops around there again . . .



Obviously, none of us other than you know the exact details of your case but it seems to me that, from what you say, an appeal would have stood a good chance of success. For future reference, this is an excellent website for advice: Parking Tickets: Appeal parking fines - Money Saving Expert .

And just for the record, the situation you describe definitely does sound like an attempt to deceive to me!


----------



## John H (Oct 9, 2013)

maureenandtom said:


> Thank you.
> 
> And is there also an authoritative reference to where councils can use non-authorised signs if they put a TRO reference beside it?



The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

This reference explains the law relating to TROs.

As a general point, our legal system is based on the premise that everything is legal unless there is a specific law against it and that central to the interpretation of the law is what a reasonable person might infer from the evidence. It is on the basis of that second point that I believe an appeal would stand a good chance of success in Smaug's case. A reasonable person would not be expected to search around for minute, hidden signs. Everything has to be clearly displayed.


----------



## Smaug (Oct 9, 2013)

John H said:


> The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
> 
> This reference explains the law relating to TROs.
> 
> As a general point, our legal system is based on the premise that everything is legal unless there is a specific law against it and that central to the interpretation of the law is what a reasonable person might infer from the evidence. It is on the basis of that second point that I believe an appeal would stand a good chance of success in Smaug's case. A reasonable person would not be expected to search around for minute, hidden signs. Everything has to be clearly displayed.



Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, there was a sign on a post by the parking place that did have the wheelchair man & disabled designation on it. Unfortunately, it didn't look any different from the other "waiting restricted to 1 hour" unless you read it. I ASSUMED the slots were all the same & did not read my specific sign until I came back within 20 mins & found the ticket. Lots of other people seem to have made the same mistake & the Council are doing very nicely from the fines.


----------



## John H (Oct 9, 2013)

Smaug said:


> Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, there was a sign on a post by the parking place that did have the wheelchair man & disabled designation on it. Unfortunately, it didn't look any different from the other "waiting restricted to 1 hour" unless you read it. I ASSUMED the slots were all the same & did not read my specific sign until I came back within 20 mins & found the ticket. Lots of other people seem to have made the same mistake & the Council are doing very nicely from the fines.



Ah, now that IS devious!


----------



## Smaug (Oct 9, 2013)

John H said:


> Ah, now that IS devious!



TBH, I don't think it is deliberate. I reckon they really did want unobtrusive road markings & signs, but they haven't understood the consequence of that & now they are getting the fines revenue they see no reason to change it. Maybe the local shopkeepers will force their hand when their footfall & takings drop, but given the response I got, I suspect they will be driven out of business first.


----------

