# advice : on no overnight sleeping and caravans signs



## justdoitviv

This morning the council has erected a couple of signs in a local layby saying. No overnight sleeping and caravans. Nearest campsite is XXXXXX

Can the council do this?

I feel quite upset about this as I have used this layby, right by the sea, for about 30 years. It is not near any houses. I spend at least a third of my time in this layby. It is popular with motorhomes in summer, and fishermen all year round. I had a feeling this was going to happen as last year the council men were knocking on the doors of motorhomes saying they cant sleep the night. Even though there were no signs. There has never been a problem with waste laying around or rowdy behaviour that I know of. Last year for the first time, two caravans parked there long term, and made themselves at home. But this was the first time. Down the road is heavily populated with campsites, and chalets. 

The reason why I am upset about this is that I used to park by some lakes, quarter of a mile from my home as well, and then the council put gates on the path so no one can drive in any more. I also parked up the road on the sand banks. Then the council made it an expensive paying car park, with no overnight sleeping. I also parked up the road, by the cliffs opposite the beach, then that was made into a car park. No my last remaining place has no overnight sleeping.

I feel my freedom and rights have slowly been stripped away. 

The council I heard had complains from the campsite, which is now advertised on the notice board, that he was loosing business. I can understand it with caravans, but not motorhomes as most have their own electric, and carry water, so don't need a campsite. Surely with all these councils doing this, people will stop buy motorhomes as what is the point if you have to book into a campsite.

Is there anything I can do about this?
Thanks


----------



## K9d

If you've been there for 30 years I'm not surprised they put up a sign 

Seriously though there does seem to be a trend of discriminating against motorhomes, I don't know about the legality of the signs but lots of lorry drivers park up overnight are they any different to a motorhome, pull up, park for the night then leave in the morning, no harm done.

Its probably a combination of NIMBYs, over zealous campsite owners worried about their profits and people being influenced by the media images of "traveler" camps, its a sad situation which is why we will be going to mainland Europe next year.


----------



## Deleted member 3802

?? Is it the layby down Shellness road ?


----------



## justdoitviv

*yes*



Old_Arthur said:


> ?? Is it the layby down Shellness road ?



Yes opposite a field, where all the fishermen go.  Signs went up this morning as I was waking up. A lot of elderly people park there on a sat/sun, read the paper and have a little snooze. I wonder what they going to make of the no sleeping sign


----------



## John H

In order to determine the legality of the signs it is necessary to establish whether or not there is a Road Traffic Order backing them up. As a general rule, if there is no reference to a TRO on the sign then there is a good chance that there isn't one. In order to establish a TRO, the local council would have to go through a long, time-consuming and expensive process including public consultation. Consequently, many councils don't bother and hope a sign will be enough to deter people. There is nothing illegal about this UNLESS the council try to impose a penalty for not conforming with the sign. You can check whether there is a TRO by simply asking the council. Any attempt to prevaricate probably means there isn't. But, remember, if there is no TRO then creating a fuss might push them into making one and thus preventing you from doing what you want to do by simply ignoring the sign and, if challenged, saying that there was no reference to a TRO and so you assumed the sign had no legal force.


----------



## Wooie1958

If there`s a sign anywhere like this then i don`t park overnight.

The last thing i want once we`ve settled down is for the local Busybody / Know-It-All to start banging on the door and pointing out the sign.


----------



## maingate

The sign MUST be illegal for the simple reason that a Council is not allowed to promote a Campsite. It is EU law I believe. Well, it's somebodys Law anyway.


----------



## Steve121

justdoitviv said:


> Can the council do this?



They've done it! 
Some years ago my local council put up a sign at the top of Dunstable Downs saying 'No Hang Gliding'. They had to take it down after the people who hang glide pointed out there was no law preventing them from doing so.
More recently the same council put up signs around the town centre warning of a £500 fine for consuming alcohol in the street. They were forced to change the sign to say the maximimum fine allowed by law would be imposed.
Sounds like the sign you're referring to is similarly not enforceable.


----------



## nicnak

*No overnight*

Hi all,
by law the legality for overnight is between 11.45pm and 12.15am, So unless a council bod or policeman want to sit and wait till between these times they cannot prosecute you. In order for a signpost to be completly legal it must state the times you cannot stay between for example no parking between 6pm and 6am. It also must state the by-laws under it. So I would just park there regardless, it is doubtful anyone is going to sit up to those hours to prove you have been there.x


----------



## shortcircuit

Wooie1958 said:


> If there`s a sign anywhere like this then i don`t park overnight.
> 
> The last thing i want once we`ve settled down is for the local Busybody / Know-It-All to start banging on the door and pointing out the sign.



So give in to an illegal sign?  Have you experienced a local busybody/know-it-all or is this just supposition?


----------



## barryd

shortcircuit said:


> So give in to an illegal sign?  Have you experienced a local busybody/know-it-all or is this just supposition?



The thing is you will though and some people just dont want any kind of hassle or confrontation which is I guess what the council, campsite owners and general pain in the arse busy bodys hope for.  Most people will move on if its a legal sign or not.

I remember one January trying to find somewhere to stop in Devon in foul weather.  It was snowing badly and getting dark.  We pulled into a large completely empty Pay and display car park on Slapton Sands right by the sea.  We watch the snow fall on the beach and only us there. It was magical.  I bought a ticket but noticed the small print saying no overnight parking etc.  Dont know if it had a TRO or not.  Didnt care.  Surely nobody would bother us on such an awful night when it was totally unsafe to carry on.

Nobody did but early the next morning I stepped outside and was approached by a local who had trudged about half a mile from the village throught the snow to point out to me as nicely as possible that there was no overnighting on his car park!  ****!  You couldnt make it up.

He wouldnt know what a TRO was but you can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of locals will delight in seeing these signs go up and will probably look forward to coming over and giving you a finger wagging.

And why do flipping campsites seem to think we owe them a living.  I read on a forum the other day (not this one thank god) a post where an actual fellow motorhomer stated "Motorhomers who wild camp or use Aires etc are depriving Campsite owners of a living"!  WHAAAAAAT!!  So when I go and park in the town tomorrow instead of taking advantage of the ample free parking around the town I should seek out the most expensive private car park and park in that then should I to help them out?

Argh!


----------



## n brown

I have only once been bothered by a righteous local-on a piece of common land in Wales-who started haranguing me ,in a very posh English accent,about 8 am ! I unfortunately burst out laughing,which made her more strident.in the end she went off raging and didn't return
 I then decided,that if it happened again,i would calmly inform the interested local that I was calling the police,which I would do,in both our interests,as I believed they were illegally harassing me and that may lead to a breach of the peace
i hate these smug bullies-who the feck do they think they are ?


----------



## Wooie1958

shortcircuit said:


> So give in to an illegal sign?  Have you experienced a local busybody/know-it-all or is this just supposition?





Yes i have, twice over the years.

The first one was a similar situation to *barryd`s*, a completely empty large car park where we tucked ourselves in a corner.

There was a sign saying " No Overnight Sleeping / Camping " or words to that effect but was obviously not official.

A few cars / dog walkers came and went with no problems but about 10pm there was a knock on the door.

I answered it and there was a guy telling me i wasn`t allowed to park there and couldn`t spend the night and wanted to show me the sign.

I was polite but firm with him and told him the sign wasn`t legal and we would be gone in the morning, with that he left.

We had a very quiet and peaceful night however at 5:30am things changed.

3 cars pulled into the still empty ( apart from us ) car park and parked so close i had difficulty getting out of our van.

They started slamming car doors and whistling and shouting as loud as they could to their dogs.

I got out and asked them if it all this was really necessary at this time in the morning. 

They replied " you`re not supposed to f*cking well be here in the first place, there are signs and you was told last night ".

1 guy on his own would have got a smack in the gob for speaking to me like that however 3 are a bit much even for me to take on !!

The second incident wasn`t as bad.

If that sort of incident doesn`t bother you then you are a better person than i am !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Deleted member 207

I had a couple of odd experiences whilst parked up, middle nowhere but with "no overnight parking" sign and some tosser comes along and flashes his headlamps for about an hour, I assume it was because of the signage that he picked on us. When I got out with a Tirfor winch handle he took off. He probably got the reaction he was after.

A parking warden came looking for a ticket - which I had bought - and proceeded to harangue me about tinkers and travellers fouling the place up. I finally got fed up, put down my cereal spoon and told him that if he said another thing I'd shove his little book where the sun don't shine, he retreated muttering about Australians!!!

But in fairness to some great wilding spots, they were putrid with rubbish when I visited the UK in 2007, old car bodies, the smell of urine and faeces was sometimes enough to move on. So I can see why locals get a bit toey. One thing I did notice was that laybys/parking areas with rubbish bins were far cleaner than the "take your rubbish home" variety.

Australia has an "RV Friendly Town" scheme running, usually with free parking for upto three days and with other facilities - water, dump point, power at some places. The smart towns realise that bringing in motorhomes/campers is a good way to boost local trade - shopping, fuel, etc. The parking areas are usually on the outskirts of a town, but historically these were overnight camping areas for travellers and drovers, so the land is already set aside. We also have a "leave no trace" scheme which is about proving to councils that motorhomes are self contained and don't drop water, toilet waste and rubbish all over the ground. There is a very active (politically and socially) motorhome club as well which has initiated the above schemes for those who like to wild camp. United we stand and all that.


----------



## barryd

And the above my friends are the reasons why so many of us bugger off abroad.

There is too little respect for motorhomers in the UK and way too much pettyness, NIMBY attitude and jealousy.  All this makes enjoyable wilding that much more difficult.

This is why I tend to avoid places even where there is an illegal sign.

Its a sad case of affairs but what can you do?


----------



## justdoitviv

*mistaken sign*



Old_Arthur said:


> ?? Is it the layby down Shellness road ?



I was there again last night when a group of people turned up and turned the signs around to face the beach and not the layby. I walked further up and the signs higher up in the layby state no overnight camping or caravan. the nearest campsite is called xxxx up the road. Surely it would not apply to motorhomes as we not camping and our vechicle is not a caravan?


----------



## shawbags

shortcircuit said:


> So give in to an illegal sign?  Have you experienced a local busybody/know-it-all or is this just supposition?



it's up to you If it's spoiling your fun then park there , as already said it is not illegal to ignore the sign and park if is not enforceable , stuff um ! their just trying it on .


----------



## shawbags

Why don't they do the same as in Australia and France and allow parking for so many days with facilities such as bins and water , as said it would boost trade in the towns and also if there was a small charge and parking times were made law people would not take the p*ss , CCTV would be a good idea as well , people would feel safer and thieves and trouble makers would get nicked , they should go the whole hog ! , spend a few million on these parking areas and they would soon pay for themselves .


----------



## Risky

Not sure if this point has been made but a sign saying no overnight parking/camping ....should it not have the end result of doing such action?
It's a bit like a sign saying no parking....it must I believe spell out the consequences of doing so i.e, a £60 fine, clamping or removal.
So...what is the consequences, if there is nothing telling you then as far as I can see then there must be NO consequences...happy days!


----------



## dysdera

We were parked having dinner at the car park near Cadair Idris in Wales last year when this woman came up to our door to speak to us and see what we were planning to do. It turned out following a short conversation that she owned the local camp-site and was drumming up trade.Followed was a heated discussion about supporting local communities etc, where I pointed out that I would be purchasing £100 of welsh diesel locally. Turned out that all she was interested in were her own profits and she became really agitated and offensive with me,


----------



## Brochloon

Risky said:


> Not sure if this point has been made but a sign saying no overnight parking/camping ....should it not have the end result of doing such action?
> It's a bit like a sign saying no parking....it must I believe spell out the consequences of doing so i.e, a £60 fine, clamping or removal.
> So...what is the consequences, if there is nothing telling you then as far as I can see then there must be NO consequences...happy days!



Consequence of defying a no overnight camping notice in Newburgh was height restriction barriers. Now no daytime parking never mind overnight. If a city, town or county council put up a sign stating no overnight parking then it's because they don't want you to. Why antagonise them and risk getting Motorhomes barred altogether ?   We enjoy wild camping whenever the opportunity arises, but if we're not wanted then we'll go elsewhere.  This is just a personal perspective - motor homing is about making your own choices.


----------



## shortcircuit

Perhaps you should take a positive approach and write to the council and ask where you can park.


----------



## Risky

Brochloon said:


> Consequence of defying a no overnight camping notice in Newburgh was height restriction barriers. Now no daytime parking never mind overnight. If a city, town or county council put up a sign stating no overnight parking then it's because they don't want you to. Why antagonise them and risk getting Motorhomes barred altogether ?   We enjoy wild camping whenever the opportunity arises, but if we're not wanted then we'll go elsewhere.  This is just a personal perspective - motor homing is about making your own choices.



That is of course what happens as a result of people doing something that is probably legal if the correct information is not displayed. If the body that places signs up that have no real legal backing cannot stop parking by that means...(well place the consequences there and that will stop the parking) their next step is to do the height restriction which then of course creates the problem for vans 24 hours.
My post was more a case of pointing out what the legal side was (from the minimal bit I know) as opposed to what I'd do. Personally me and the OH cannot be bothered to have the confrontations and would rather be somewhere with no chance of a busy body imposing their negativity upon our peace and quiet.


----------



## Brochloon

shortcircuit said:


> Perhaps you should take a positive approach and write to the council and ask where you can park.



I made a formal request (FOI) to Dundee City Council regarding why they had decided to put no overnight parking signs in the car parks along the front at Broughty Ferry and if it was done under traffic order.  I received my reply, from their legal advisor, which was very long winded but stressed that the City Council had the right to impose conditions of usage for their car parks which were (the car parks) approved under local by-laws ?????


----------



## shortcircuit

Brochloon said:


> I made a formal request (FOI) to Dundee City Council regarding why they had decided to put no overnight parking signs in the car parks along the front at Broughty Ferry and if it was done under traffic order.  I received my reply, from their legal advisor, which was very long winded but stressed that the City Council had the right to impose conditions of usage for their car parks which were (the car parks) approved under local by-laws ?????



Thanks for the feedback. If they did not provide detail of the traffic order, which I understand must be displayed on the sign, are the just huffing and puffing with no substance?


----------



## John H

shortcircuit said:


> Thanks for the feedback. If they did not provide detail of the traffic order, which I understand must be displayed on the sign, are the just huffing and puffing with no substance?



Sounds very much like it. TROs are supposed to be publicly available information. In theory, you should be able to get them from the local library. If they don't quote chapter and verse then I would be very suspicious of them.

Having said that, I very much agree with the comments about not going where people obviously don't want me. Apart from the potential physical danger to the motorhome from angry locals, there is also the height barrier thing that has been mentioned above. Creating a fuss can sometimes be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Battles need to be chosen carefully - there is no need to try and win every one!


----------



## Wooie1958

John H said:


> Creating a fuss can sometimes be cutting off your nose to spite your face!




There`s plenty prepared to do that on here ................................... LOL


----------



## Brochloon

shortcircuit said:


> Thanks for the feedback. If they did not provide detail of the traffic order, which I understand must be displayed on the sign, are the just huffing and puffing with no substance?



Aye, you are probably quite right. Thing is, I was in the Civil Service for 34 years and part of my responsibilities towards the end of my career was replying to FOI requests. We were told to give just the minimum of info required to meet the request and if more was then requested, a charge of £30 was applied for "further in-depth research".  Way I look at it - it's Broughty Ferry's loss. We'll still go and have a great day but find somewhere else to overnight and we'll buy our fuel, food etc wherever we're made welcome.


----------



## maingate

Brochloon said:


> Consequence of defying a no overnight camping notice in Newburgh was height restriction barriers. Now no daytime parking never mind overnight. If a city, town or county council put up a sign stating no overnight parking then it's because they don't want you to. Why antagonise them and risk getting Motorhomes barred altogether ?   We enjoy wild camping whenever the opportunity arises, but if we're not wanted then we'll go elsewhere.  This is just a personal perspective - motor homing is about making your own choices.



So the height barriers would be just as illegal as the 'no overnighting' signs were.

If it was done illegally near me then I would turn it into a crusade just to be mischievous. 

Old people with time on their hands can be a right pain. :banana:


----------



## John H

maingate said:


> So the height barriers would be just as illegal as the 'no overnighting' signs were.
> 
> If it was done illegally near me then I would turn it into a crusade just to be mischievous.
> 
> Old people with time on their hands can be a right pain. :banana:



I think you'll find that no TRO is needed for a Council to erect a height barrier on its own land. There is no compulsion on any Council to provide off-street car parking, so they can put up height barriers, concrete blocks, dig ditches or simply sell off the land for building development if they choose.


----------



## steco1958

John H said:


> I think you'll find that no TRO is needed for a Council to erect a height barrier on its own land. There is no compulsion on any Council to provide off-street car parking, so they can put up height barriers, concrete blocks, dig ditches or simply sell off the land for building development if they choose.



A TRO may be needed for height barriers, however you will still not be able to park, so council gets their way, they also have  many people to utilise if a request comes in, and they can generate a multitude of letters if they wish.

I travel both with MH and car for business, if I wish to visit an area, and I am unable to park due to height barriers or restrictive parking notices, you know what I get the hint and I use my diesel to go elsewhere to spend my hard earned cash.


----------



## Derf

Here's my take on it;


----------



## Stardreamer

*Signs*

A medium sized dog with large white teeth are a good deterant for busybodys especially in the hours of darkness.
:tongue:


----------



## John H

steco1958 said:


> A TRO may be needed for height barriers, however you will still not be able to park, so council gets their way, they also have  many people to utilise if a request comes in, and they can generate a multitude of letters if they wish.
> 
> I travel both with MH and car for business, if I wish to visit an area, and I am unable to park due to height barriers or restrictive parking notices, you know what I get the hint and I use my diesel to go elsewhere to spend my hard earned cash.



Hi

Sometimes, height barriers are used as a way of enforcing TROs but I know of no legislation that requires a TRO to be established if a council wishes to simply put up barriers, gates or other obstructions at the entrance to all or any of its car parks. As I said earlier, there is nothing to compel councils to provide car parking spaces; it follows that any council can decide not to at any time. 

I totally agree with your second paragraph - if they don't want me then I'll spend my cash where they do want me - in Hawick, for example!


----------



## maingate

John H said:


> Hi
> 
> Sometimes, height barriers are used as a way of enforcing TROs but I know of no legislation that requires a TRO to be established if a council wishes to simply put up barriers, gates or other obstructions at the entrance to all or any of its car parks. As I said earlier, there is nothing to compel councils to provide car parking spaces; it follows that any council can decide not to at any time.
> 
> I totally agree with your second paragraph - if they don't want me then I'll spend my cash where they do want me - in Hawick, for example!



As for Hawick John, the Council gets no credit there. It was the local Tourist authorities who pushed for it and it only happened because that very large car park has nothing to do with the Council. It is owned by the people of Hawick under an ancient statute. The Council were very reluctant for the Aire to go ahead and only agreed to a trial period. They may even get it stopped yet.


----------



## John H

maingate said:


> As for Hawick John, the Council gets no credit there. It was the local Tourist authorities who pushed for it and it only happened because that very large car park has nothing to do with the Council. It is owned by the people of Hawick under an ancient statute. The Council were very reluctant for the Aire to go ahead and only agreed to a trial period. They may even get it stopped yet.



True - when I spoke of people not wanting us, I was referring to the wider community. Councils only tend to do what their more vociferous voters want them to do, so if an area has a lot of "no overnighting" notices then you can be pretty sure that many of the locals will try to make your life hell - which brings us full circle! 

The Hawick experiment seems to have gone down well with us, with locals and with local businesses, so unless a few anti-social motorhomers start dropping s*** all over the tarmac then I suspect the scheme will be allowed to continue. On the other hand, there is often no logic to council decisions


----------



## landyrubbertramp

Also remember that if you live in another area u therefor have not vote hence why the council have less respect for m homers . As for not parking in a spot wit just a sign and no tro just gives the green light for the council to put more signs up as they have win as ur either too scared or lazy to challenge or both


----------



## landyrubbertramp

If the council had a sign telling ppl to jump off a cliff I swear sum people would jump


----------



## steco1958

landyrubbertramp said:


> If the council had a sign telling ppl to jump off a cliff I swear sum people would jump



So you still want to visit where your not wanted, and you will spend your money in the businesses that have requested you not to be there !!

myself, can't be arsed with them, spend it where I am welcomed and appreciated.


----------



## Photophil

As I see it under common law as long as you don't steal anything or hurt anyone you're ok and the police can't bother you as you haven't committed a crime. An act or stature is only enforceable by consent and I don't consent.


----------



## steco1958

Photophil said:


> As I see it under common law as long as you don't steal anything or hurt anyone you're ok and the police can't bother you as you haven't committed a crime. An act or stature is only enforceable by consent and I don't consent.



:lol-049::lol-049::lol-049:

I do hope you never get stopped on suspicion of doing anything wrong, her's hoping you consent to proving your innocent


----------



## Photophil

True. But you are not obliged to give them any information DOB name etc. you have the right to remain silent. They need reasonable suspicion and as soon as you start filming them they get extremely nice. Most police don't know the law/acts they are trying to enforce. Just ask them for the wording of the act for clarification.


----------



## Derf

Photophil said:


> As I see it under common law as long as you don't steal anything or hurt anyone you're ok and the police can't bother you as you haven't committed a crime. An act or stature is only enforceable by consent and I don't consent.



You just have to love a misinformed freeman of the land...


----------



## Derf

Photophil said:


> True. But you are not obliged to give them any information DOB name etc. you have the right to remain silent. They need reasonable suspicion and as soon as you start filming them they get extremely nice. Most police don't know the law/acts they are trying to enforce. Just ask them for the wording of the act for clarification.



Presumably if your wild camping in a motorhome, you are in a mechanically powered vehicle on a road or public place, in which case you are obliged to furnish a constable with your details if required which you consented to when you signed your driving license.


Edit:

Section 165 Road Traffic Act 1988


----------



## janstevecairns

*Freedom of Information Act*

If this local council is promoting the use of a local council then You should put in a freedom of Information request,which should ask specifically if the council has any members who have an intrest or are related to the campsite. This may well uncover some dodgy dealings.


----------



## antiqueman

*wet councilor*



Wooie1958 said:


> Yes i have, twice over the years.
> 
> The first one was a similar situation to *barryd`s*, a completely empty large car park where we tucked ourselves in a corner.
> 
> There was a sign saying " No Overnight Sleeping / Camping " or words to that effect but was obviously not official.
> 
> A few cars / dog walkers came and went with no problems but about 10pm there was a knock on the door.
> 
> I answered it and there was a guy telling me i wasn`t allowed to park there and couldn`t spend the night and wanted to show me the sign.
> 
> I was polite but firm with him and told him the sign wasn`t legal and we would be gone in the morning, with that he left.
> 
> We had a very quiet and peaceful night however at 5:30am things changed.
> 
> 3 cars pulled into the still empty ( apart from us ) car park and parked so close i had difficulty getting out of our van.
> 
> They started slamming car doors and whistling and shouting as loud as they could to their dogs.
> 
> I got out and asked them if it all this was really necessary at this time in the morning.
> 
> They replied " you`re not supposed to f*cking well be here in the first place, there are signs and you was told last night ".
> 
> 1 guy on his own would have got a smack in the gob for speaking to me like that however 3 are a bit much even for me to take on !!
> 
> The second incident wasn`t as bad.
> 
> If that sort of incident doesn`t bother you then you are a better person than i am !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I had an incident with a councilor one night in the pouring rain I was parked on the road in a non restricted area he told me I could not park here overnight and said there were many campsites within 10 miles, I said but they are not near my favourite pub and was not driving after visiting said pub, I also told him I would not have parked there if the many car parks away from the road and with lovely views did not have no overnight parking signs on them. so I suggested he went home to dry out, luckily there was only one of him.The pub has no car park by the way as I love pubs and the carparks and never been refused in 6 years.


----------



## landyrubbertramp

When ppl say don't go to an area because the council are anti n home . It assumes the council own the county well they don't the fact that it's part of the uk means it's accessible and if ur a good citizen I would think if u asked a 100 local ppl they would want you thier plus maybe your family or relatives to vist or maybe to see the grave of a loved one or even a family member who fought and died in a war to get freedom etc my point is I will not let any council dictate my movements if I'm a law abiding person


----------



## Deleted member 38556

justdoitviv said:


> This morning the council has erected a couple of signs in a local layby saying. No overnight sleeping and caravans. Nearest campsite is XXXXXX
> 
> Can the council do this?
> 
> I feel quite upset about this as I have used this layby, right by the sea, for about 30 years. It is not near any houses. I spend at least a third of my time in this layby. It is popular with motorhomes in summer, and fishermen all year round. I had a feeling this was going to happen as last year the council men were knocking on the doors of motorhomes saying they cant sleep the night. Even though there were no signs. There has never been a problem with waste laying around or rowdy behaviour that I know of. Last year for the first time, two caravans parked there long term, and made themselves at home. But this was the first time. Down the road is heavily populated with campsites, and chalets.
> 
> The reason why I am upset about this is that I used to park by some lakes, quarter of a mile from my home as well, and then the council put gates on the path so no one can drive in any more. I also parked up the road on the sand banks. Then the council made it an expensive paying car park, with no overnight sleeping. I also parked up the road, by the cliffs opposite the beach, then that was made into a car park. No my last remaining place has no overnight sleeping.
> 
> I feel my freedom and rights have slowly been stripped away.
> 
> The council I heard had complains from the campsite, which is now advertised on the notice board, that he was loosing business. I can understand it with caravans, but not motorhomes as most have their own electric, and carry water, so don't need a campsite. Surely with all these councils doing this, people will stop buy motorhomes as what is the point if you have to book into a campsite.
> 
> Is there anything I can do about this?
> Thanks




It is a sad loss. We live in rippoff Britton 
Parking over night is being banned all over England and Wales 
The campsites are not loosing any thing  from me as I do not use them 
Why are we laying road tax to be moved on
My way around it. Is my Blue badge 
I park up  if they try to take action I  use my disability  as it would be too dangerous to drive
Has worked many times. Not sure just how long before even when too poorly to drive. I will be forced to do so ? 

It's now all about  money  with these greedy councils


----------



## Deleted member 38556

landyrubbertramp said:


> When ppl say don't go to an area because the council are anti n home . It assumes the council own the county well they don't the fact that it's part of the uk means it's accessible and if ur a good citizen I would think if u asked a 100 local ppl they would want you thier plus maybe your family or relatives to vist or maybe to see the grave of a loved one or even a family member who fought and died in a war to get freedom etc my point is I will not let any council dictate my movements if I'm a law abiding person



You will be using campsites then  !!
As to park over night will become illegal every where


----------



## Tony Lee

> Why don't they do the same as in Australia and France and allow parking for so many days with facilities such as bins and water



You wish! Despite Roger's glowing report, there are MANY councils and towns in Australia that have  a strict No Overnight Parking policy and they enforce it too. Some have fines ranging to hundreds of dollars. Some towns have big signs up as you cross the boundary and they back it up with rangers who patrol at all hours. Thing is, that may not be as bad as it sounds because most of us much prefer to park well away from towns anyway. Parking in a Tesco carpark just doesn't appeal. However, there are some shire councils that do have shire wide bans (and some of those shires could just about fit the entire UK inside their boundaries. Western Australia - nearly half the size of the whole of Australia is rapidly getting to the stage of having bans extending right along the inhabited coastline.

USA, home of the brave and the free blah blah blah has MANY towns and cities with the same sort of NOP policies and the local police enforce it too. Places like Walmart, that traditionally welcome self-contained motorhomes, have no choice but to refuse permission in the NOP towns. 

France?  Their supposedly liberal policy doesn't apply France-wide either and in any case never applies to non-self-contained vehicles.


----------



## steco1958

Photophil said:


> True. But you are not obliged to give them any information DOB name etc. you have the right to remain silent. They need reasonable suspicion and as soon as you start filming them they get extremely nice. Most police don't know the law/acts they are trying to enforce. Just ask them for the wording of the act for clarification.



If you are asked to give your Name, address, DOB as an example, and you don't, I will almost guarantee, you will be in the cells, as you will be obstructing the police in their duties. They will be unable to let you go at the road side, as they do not know who you are, and could have a warrant against you.

And don't tell me it doesn't happen, it does I was there


----------



## steco1958

landyrubbertramp said:


> When ppl say don't go to an area because the council are anti n home . It assumes the council own the county well they don't the fact that it's part of the uk means it's accessible and if ur a good citizen I would think if u asked a 100 local ppl they would want you thier plus maybe your family or relatives to vist or maybe to see the grave of a loved one or even a family member who fought and died in a war to get freedom etc my point is I will not let any council dictate my movements if I'm a law abiding person



They don't dictate as such, its a choice I choose to make, if there are carparks with barriers or no overnight camping signs, I move to where there are places to park and camp. I then choose to spend my money.


----------



## landyrubbertramp

Hi steco I agree with your point It doesn't stop you goin to an area motor Mhome lover . Where does it state and I carnt see ppl being stooped from parking on the side if the road parked legally and stopped from over night parking on every yard of road in Britain


----------



## steco1958

landyrubbertramp said:


> Hi steco I agree with your point It doesn't stop you goin to an area motor Mhome lover . Where does it state and I carnt see ppl being stooped from parking on the side if the road parked legally and stopped from over night parking on every yard of road in Britain



Lady RT,

I would love to answer your question, however I am unable to understand what you are trying to say.

Please re-post


----------



## steco1958

Wints, can't argue with you on this however there is one slight flaw, the residents of said councils are not being inconvenienced, so they will not complain.

The money making side of parking is a great incentive for the councils, stop that and the tax will go up, as sure as eggs is eggs.


----------



## steco1958

Not being unfair, I genuinely do not understand what point is being made, I have asked for a repost, I am not a pedant for from it, as you can see from my obvious mistake in his name


----------



## steco1958

Wints,

People cant be arsed to check on what the councils do or don't do, that is why they get away with whatever they do, legal or otherwise, and when a person who shall be nameless tries, he is then shot down in flames, and banished.

and yes, I have experienced the small villages and their tranquil nature, please tyry not to be sooooo condescending, it becomes you so well.


----------



## SteveM

steco1958 said:


> If you are asked to give your Name, address, DOB as an example, and you don't, I will almost guarantee, you will be in the cells, as you will be obstructing the police in their duties. They will be unable to let you go at the road side, as they do not know who you are, and could have a warrant against you.
> 
> And don't tell me it doesn't happen, it does I was there



Not sure how a thread about a council issue turns partly into a police powers discussion but here goes....

In general you are not required to give your name, address, dob to a police officer and you will not be in the cells for this alone. However if you have committed an offence or suspected of committing an offence and refuse to give these details then you will be arrested as one of the necessity criteria for arrest under PACE Code G is to ascertain name and address. 

A police officer cannot arrest you for failing to give your details as you 'could' have a warrant against you, unless of course he has prior knowledge that you 'are' or 'recently have been' wanted on warrant.

Now to bring this to some relevance to a road side stop, whilst the above is correct, it is also correct that a police officer can request to see your driving documents, and what details are on your driving licence? Name, address and photograph, so job done for them, this also takes away one of the necessity criteria for arrest if an offence has been committed.


----------



## steco1958

SteveM said:


> Not sure how a thread about a council issue turns partly into a police powers discussion but here goes....
> 
> In general you are not required to give your name, address, dob to a police officer and you will not be in the cells for this alone. However if you have committed an offence or suspected of committing an offence and refuse to give these details then you will be arrested as one of the necessity criteria for arrest under PACE Code G is to ascertain name and address.
> 
> A police officer cannot arrest you for failing to give your details as you 'could' have a warrant against you, unless of course he has prior knowledge that you 'are' or 'recently have been' wanted on warrant.
> 
> Now to bring this to some relevance to a road side stop, whilst the above is correct, it is also correct that a police officer can request to see your driving documents, and what details are on your driving licence? Name, address and photograph, so job done for them, this also takes away one of the necessity criteria for arrest if an offence has been committed.



And what would happen, if I do not have documents on me, and I still refuse to give name ?

Sorry for staying off post, if someone want to split this to a seperate thread.


----------



## shawbags

Tony Lee said:


> You wish! Despite Roger's glowing report, there are MANY councils and towns in Australia that have  a strict No Overnight Parking policy and they enforce it too. Some have fines ranging to hundreds of dollars. Some towns have big signs up as you cross the boundary and they back it up with rangers who patrol at all hours. Thing is, that may not be as bad as it sounds because most of us much prefer to park well away from towns anyway. Parking in a Tesco carpark just doesn't appeal. However, there are some shire councils that do have shire wide bans (and some of those shires could just about fit the entire UK inside their boundaries. Western Australia - nearly half the size of the whole of Australia is rapidly getting to the stage of having bans extending right along the inhabited coastline.
> 
> USA, home of the brave and the free blah blah blah has MANY towns and cities with the same sort of NOP policies and the local police enforce it too. Places like Walmart, that traditionally welcome self-contained motorhomes, have no choice but to refuse permission in the NOP towns.
> 
> France?  Their supposedly liberal policy doesn't apply France-wide either and in any case never applies to non-self-contained vehicles.



I think you got the point I was trying to make , I never park in towns anyway I always move out of the towns to get more peace and there is less chance of being noticed , everyone should rebel ! , Say no !! , i'm sick of having to watch my back just in case I fart and get fined ! it's past a joke !.


----------



## Wooie1958

shawbags said:


> I think you got the point I was trying to make , I never park in towns anyway I always move out of the towns to get more peace and there is less chance of being noticed , everyone should rebel ! , Say no !! , i'm sick of having to watch my back just in case I* fart* and get fined ! it's past a joke !.





Naughty word , naughty word ........ fine him, ban him ..............  better still Hang Him ................ LOL


----------



## shawbags

Wooie1958 said:


> Naughty word , naughty word ........ fine him, ban him ..............  better still Hang Him ................ LOL



Phil's got more common sense than that , it is getting totally out of hand though I would rather go into a pub and give the landlord a fiver for the night ( I don't drink ) , but if the councils new that was going on even if it was free they would do something to stop it , crooks the lot of them ! , just disagreeing with a council member is becoming a hanging offence :wacko:.


----------



## SteveM

steco1958 said:


> And what would happen, if I do not have documents on me, and I still refuse to give name ?
> 
> Sorry for staying off post, if someone want to split this to a seperate thread.



Failure to produce your docs to a police officer is an offence, however the law gives you a defence in that you have 7 days to produce them. However a police officer will require your name and address to complete the producer so you could technically be arrested for the offence of failing to produce your driving docs and the arrest would be necessary to ascertain name and address. Aft this, as soon as name and address is given you would be de-arrested as this necessity is no longer there.

Now in the sensible world where all our details are on computer, the police officer may conduct a check of the vehicle and ask your name to confirm the against the registered keeper or insured drivers, give your name and all is ok then you are on your way. Don't give your name and the police officer may start to suspect the vehicle isn't yours or you are not insured to drive and may consider dealing accordingly. In this computer age I understand a lot of forces have phased out producers as all records can be checked at the roadside.


----------



## steco1958

Because Its not a requirement !! 
and The powers that be have never got round to it !!


----------



## julesanian

*No Croeso in Wales*

We've noticed that Wales is becoming more unfriendly to us wilders. We've already had to report one POI that had been made unusable with large boulders and there must have been at least half a dozen of these signs on the coastal road to Tywyn. It looks a bit frightening the £1000 fine but we think the fine refers to the leaving litter and not the overnight parking bit. Disingenuous or what?!


----------



## steco1958

Not sure where I am upset about council parking rules, If a council doesn't want me to park in a carpark, or a location on their area, I probably won't, I take my custom elswhere.

How easy is my life going to get by carrying my licence with me ??


----------



## sasquatch

Councils are becoming crooks. This started when they were given powers following the decriminalisation of parking,our local area is now 'littered' with residents parking zones,I live in one and it has not benefited me,just the attendants issuing tickets (I will not call them traffic wardens,because they are not that well trained). However a large majority of the marked bays are non compliant with the regulations,it is up to the PCN recipient to appeal against issue in all cases,which means that they receive the minimum level of training.
Councils make up the rules to suit themselves and their special chums!


----------



## shawbags

steco1958 said:


> Wints,
> 
> People cant be arsed to check on what the councils do or don't do, that is why they get away with whatever they do, legal or otherwise, and when a person who shall be nameless tries, he is then shot down in flames, and banished.
> 
> and yes, I have experienced the small villages and their tranquil nature, please tyry not to be sooooo condescending, it becomes you so well.



I totally agree with what you say about councils , I complained to my local councillor 4 years ago after a council manager refused to do repairs , I got the work done because the councillor was in a position were he could not say no , even though he did agree , ever since then ,no matter what I need I get problems from that certain manager and she is very blatant about it ,  I think she needs to meet the old me before she will back of but of course I would be waking strait into her hands , in saying that I think the day is near and she will be getting what for .


----------



## jenks

I do not trust counsellors my limited experience of them involved my local Mayer or the time.

My bin had been stolen, then the free replacement torched... I refused to spend £60 on another, but instead opted to take my rubbish straight to the refuse collection centre.... I asked for a reduction in council tax as I was no longer requiring their service....... Anyway one of my neighbours who had also suffered the same bin fate started to pile rubbish bags up outside her property on a communal area for our block.... The local Mayer / counsellor came calling making door to door enquiries, I invited him in for a cuppa and chat (at this point I had no idea for the reason to his call). He went nuts about the rubbish outside and pointed the finger at me, his reasoning being the other tenants were all social housing and have no reason to leave rubbish outside as they had always lived on the estate since being kids and he knew their Mums! Apparently as an outsider it was all my fault!... OK... when he got more and more agitated I suggested he left via the front door or I'd be needing a new living room window! His parting statement was "there are plenty of bins out on bin day, just get one and sort the mess or I'll be back with official documents".  He never came back with anything and I did get a new bin from the council - I rang them and said I'd just moved in and there was no bin!

Utter crooks! All of my dealings with that particular council were shocking. I hate to think what they will be doing with the parking spaces in laybys etc. I don't hold much hope for most councils based on the above dealings.. 


That said here in Hampshire they seem the complete opposite, the signs for no overnighting etc seem to include the by law or TRO etc and upon careful reading they are open during the less touristy months. Newport City Council fail at everything Hampshire and it's subsidiaries seems to get things right!


----------



## vespalien

Name & address to a policeman? His APNR will already have given him the keeper's address for your van & the legality or otherwise of all its documentation.


Re legality or otherwise of no overnight camping signs? Almost all are likely to be unenforceable if you have either a good brief or speak nicely to Andy ********** who can probably identify a few dozen weaknesses in the Council's case for you for a small fee. 

They will not be able to stop overnight parking & sleeping in lay-bys because lorry drivers are required to take regular rest periods & often stop over in laybys. How can they say a lorry can park with the driver sleeping in the cab (and possibly no washing/ toilet facilities) yet a fully self-contained MH cannot? It simply does not make sense. 

Height barriers create access issues to public land to which we have a right of access. It may well be possible to insist that the Council open the barriers for genuine access, of course, they will not want to & will do all they can to obstruct access, but there may well be a public right of access that they are not allowed to disrupt, in which case the law can be your friend. 

You can give up & go away if you like, or you can do a bit of research & be a pain in the butt to Councillors who force their employees to act illegally. Incidentally, when local busybodies harangue you, then your smart video phone is your friend, ask them what law(s) you have contravened & offer to call the police if the hassle you on camera. 

Not sure if this will be allowed to be posted, mentioning Andy as it does, but perhaps we shall see if your board meister has any sense of fairness at all.


----------



## landyrubbertramp

Hi steco I should have give you a better response than i did . I apologise for that. When u mentioned why bother visiting an area my point was the area doesn't belong to a council it's belongs to the community etc. And I would not let a council worry enough or scare me about threats if illegal parking if u saw such a sigh I would ignore it and if sorrow he'd would challenge the council as it is my duty we should not forget democracy is not won and lost its a constant struggle and we have an obligation as citizens to ensure we challenge the council in these areas


----------



## steco1958

landyrubbertramp said:


> Hi steco I should have give you a better response than i did . I apologise for that. When u mentioned why bother visiting an area my point was the area doesn't belong to a council it's belongs to the community etc. And I would not let a council worry enough or scare me about threats if illegal parking if u saw such a sigh I would ignore it and if sorrow he'd would challenge the council as it is my duty we should not forget democracy is not won and lost its a constant struggle and we have an obligation as citizens to ensure we challenge the council in these areas



Landy RT, I understand what you are saying, however my initial comments still apply, and in short, why bother, for me life is too short.

I do not worry about the threats, I have had parking charges in the past, again, its the hassle of fighting them, it just spoils yet another day and possibly more.

As for the challanging of the councils, I have seen the inner workings of such beasts, my wife still works within our local council, best of luck to you sir !!

For me hit them in the pocket, send emails and let them know you will not spend your money there, if enough do it, they will listen ! won't they ?

Extract below of email trail for windsor:- (read from bottom to top)

Dear Mr Cowdell,
Thank you for your below e-mail.
Our operations manager has been in contact with many of the motor home groups.
As explained previously, parking in Windsor is restricted by height in most of the car parks, therefore unable to accommodate parking for motor homes. The only car park suitable for vehicles of such size is Windsor Coach Park CP. Subject to availability, we try to ensure that parking for motorhomes is provided, however during busy periods when demand for coach parking is high we can not guarantee that parking will be available.
Kind regards,


Aggie Fedyna* 
Parking Department
Town Hall
St Ives Road
Maidenhead
SL6 1RF
Tel: 01628 683880
parking@rbwm.gov.uk


From: Stephen Cowdell
Sent: 08 April 2014 11:23
To: Parking
Subject: Re: Visiting Windsor

Aggie,

That is very unfortunate, I will now have to look at our plans, and may necessitate not visiting your area, this has an effect on your local economy, admittedly if it is just me, then only a few hundred pound per visit when you add up the camping fees, the drinks, the food, petrol, parking charges, so on and so forth.

However, as I am a member of 3 of the largest “Motorhome Forums” on the UK internet, and this email will be printed including your response, I would request that you reconsider your stance on such vehicles, as motorhomes are becoming more prevalent, with people who have a larger than average disposable income, you are most definitely missing out on all that income.

As an example, if say 100 people decided not to visit your area due to being unable to park, you lose out on over £30,000.00 – £40,000.00, now I know, there are certainly a higher proportion of people that will not visit as your council are not welcoming of motorhome vehicles, so the figure is probably far in excess of what I have stated.

Your comments (or others) would be gratefully received.

Stephen Cowdell


On 08/04/2014 10:03, "Parking" <Parking@RBWM.gov.uk> wrote:
Dear Mr Cowdell,
Thank you for your below enquiry.
Unfortunately we do not provide parking for motor homes. Space permitting we try to accommodate parking in Windsor Coach Park CP as this is the only suitable location for this type of vehicles.
Unfortunately I am unable to confirm whether parking will be available on the day due to high demand for parking by coaches.
Kind regards,


Aggie Fedyna  
Parking Department
Town Hall
St Ives Road
Maidenhead
SL6 1RF
Tel: 01628 683880
parking@rbwm.gov.uk <mailtoarking@rbwm.gov.uk> 


From: Stephen Cowdell
Sent: 07 April 2014 13:33
To: Parking
Subject: Visiting Windsor

Dear sir,



Over the summer I intend to visit Windsor and the surrounding area in my Motorhome. The length is 7.5 m and height is 3.1m, this will be our only means of transport, as we go from campsite to campsite within your area, are there any provisions for parking such a vehicle within proximity of the historic tourist sites.



Thanking you in advance



Regards



Stephen Cowdell

would be good for other to follow suit, I have left their email address in, however I have removed mine


----------



## shawbags

I would advise anyone having any kind of contact with the council to record all conversations ( i'm not going into the legality of this ) , a bout 4 months ago I had terrible trouble with a member of council staff , after he shot his mouth off I told him that his outburst had been recorded , looking as though he had sh!t himself :scared: he became very quiet and off he went , the job was done within 5 days , NEVER TRUST THEM THEY TELL LIES !!!!! and stick together like flies round s(it ! , BE WARNED !! , Chris.


----------



## John H

[No message]


----------



## John H

No - you are prejudiced because you made a crass point about a Labour controlled council being at fault while a Tory controlled one wasn't. You never miss a chance to blame Labour and praise the Tories - that is where you show your prejudice.

And another technique you use all the time is that, when you have been found out, you try to shift the argument by claiming that the other person said something he/she clearly didn't. Nobody - except you - could conclude that I implied that all councillors are beyond criticism.


----------



## steco1958

Just shown this to my wife, a very competent Local Government Officer, she has come across biased and prejediced views, and would love to know where you are getting your information from, how many of the millions of people that have dealings with local councils have you canvased for your opinion that the majority of staff rarely have high levels of competence.

In general, you have an opinion, founded on no evidence what so ever.


----------



## landyrubbertramp

Steco thanks for your response we may disagree in a few areas but in general we are on the sane page my friend lee


----------



## steco1958

landyrubbertramp said:


> Steco thanks for your response we may disagree in a few areas but in general we are on the sane page my friend lee



I would agree, we just do it in different ways


----------



## shawbags

[No message]


----------



## steco1958

shawbags said:


> I have personally lost count at the amount of times I have been lied to by council staff , managers and general workers , I know of friends who on many occasions have been lied to by council members , managers , staff , what I posted earlier actually happened and I have to record any time I get visits or deal with the council and I will say it's the people with more power that tell more lies , yes there is good and bad but a lot of these people are bad and its getting worse , I could go into a lot more detail but I could not be bothered , in my experience its not just lies it's bullying , power goes strait to their heads .



Sorry to hear you have had problems, they do not have power, they have procedures, that they must follow, by all means record them, and if you have issues with them, put it in writing.


----------



## shawbags

steco1958 said:


> Just shown this to my wife, a very competent Local Government Officer, she has come across biased and prejediced views, and would love to know where you are getting your information from, how many of the millions of people that have dealings with local councils have you canvased for your opinion that the majority of staff rarely have high levels of competence.
> 
> In general, you have an opinion, founded on no evidence what so ever.



To say that many staff have a low level of competence is maybe the wrong choice of words , but believe me there are things that I have witnessed and if I had not seen it for my own eyes I would not have believed it , who's right or wrong goes out of the window and bitterness and power mungering soon shows it's ugly face , council members at times get away with blue murder ( figure of speech ) and it's allowed to go on sometimes right under their bosses noses and at times their bosses will encourage them  , the council tenant are looked on as low life and should be seen and not heard , this country is going backwards , just my opinion , interesting thread , Shawbags.


----------



## shawbags

steco1958 said:


> Sorry to hear you have had problems, they do not have power, they have procedures, that they must follow, by all means record them, and if you have issues with them, put it in writing.



I've done all that and the fact is 1 member of staff has taken it personally and she does what ever she can to stop me getting repairs ect , I have to fight for everything I get , she will upset the wrong person 1 day , maybe then it will stop her , i'm not the only person having problems with her , yes there is procedure but there are ways around it , sly people , but as said there is good and bad everywhere , as I said I could go into setail about a lot of things and as for waisting tax payers money !! don't get me started LOL .


----------



## landyrubbertramp

Hi shawbags I know ppl who have exactly the same things happen to then as council tennets the council staff see them as worse than mud


----------



## steco1958

You have me very wrong here, if my wife was doing a poor job, I would be the first to be on her back, She has many years of experience, and has come up against some poor officers, and managers, who refuse to abide by the rules that are set out to both serve the people and protect the staff, however in the main, the majority are good people doing a thankless task.

I have seen the problems from the other side, where absolutely terrible tenants are abusive, threatening, and violent, and still want the officer to be calm collected and fair.

I have highlighted your generalisations again with no FACTS just your opinion.

If it was me, I'd have lost my job, and possibly a court appearance for GBH.

My last post on this subject as I know as well as you do we are poles apart in our views and opinions, and neither shall be swain.

PS, don't get personal !! you would not like me to get angry and start being personal in retaliation. now would you.


----------



## John H

We are all biased by our own experiences. Anyone who does not have some kind of prejudice has not had any experiences. My criticism of you is not that you have prejudices; if you look back to what I said, I used the phrase "silly prejudices". That may not be the most accurate way of expressing it but what I meant was that you miss no opportunity to squeeze your obvious bias into a topic in which it has no meaning at all. It is all a bit tedious.


And, since this thread has now turned into yet another "public bad; private good" rant, I might add that I have had many frustrating and fruitless encounters with private companies too. Their "customer service" departments seem designed to make sure that no-one ever gets through to anybody who might be able to do something about your problem. Incompetence and mis-direction is not limited to the public sector, despite certain people's obvious prejudices!


----------



## Brochloon

This thread began as very interesting and informative. There were some good opinions and experiences given and I found it enjoyable to follow. What a shame it has disintegrated into another "argument" for lack of a better word.


----------



## John H

Since when were "no overnighting" signs a party political matter? I repeat, you introduced your prejudice in a silly way in a discussion in which it was not relevant. 

Btw my prejudices were only brought into this matter to counter the silliness of comments such as yours. But I don't expect you to get it - you rarely do.


----------



## John H

A piece of advice from an old hand at reading people - if you don't want to be known, its best to keep your mouth shut :lol-053:


----------



## Deleted member 21686

What was this post about?


----------



## Older Gurna

landyrubbertramp said:


> If the council had a sign telling ppl to jump off a cliff I swear sum people would jump



Glamorgan Council have a sign at Barry Knap telling people NOT to jump from them!:rolleyes2:


----------



## Wooie1958

Older Gurna said:


> Glamorgan Council have a sign at Barry Knap telling people NOT to jump from them!:rolleyes2:




Ah yes, but is it an official one  backed up with the correct regulations stated on it ? :danger:

If not it can happily be ignored


----------



## Tezza33

[No message]


----------



## iampatman

I'm not getting involved in this one. I'm still reeling from Wints describing my degree as "worthless". I might need some counselling (or councilling) to recover from the insult


----------



## Wooie1958

iampatman said:


> I'm not getting involved in this one. I'm still reeling from Wints describing my degree as "worthless". I might need some counselling (or councilling) to recover from the insult




Don`t forget some Compo as well ............. a few thousand should do it ......... LOL


----------



## iampatman

Wooie1958 said:


> Don`t forget some Compo as well ............. a few thousand should do it ......... LOL



Ha ha, All that work, all the effort!! I'm thinking of going back and asking for a refund. Do you think Wints will write a letter of support for me?
Pat


----------



## Tommybago

I came across this thread and have read a lot of the pages ... not all ! I get the idea that this will not get sorted/ changed .. unless we try approaching to start with campsite owners maybe ! Asking / suggesting that if they feel they are losing out with motorhomes that if they say offer a refresh/top up services of maybe £5 ! Where we can drop toilets, and grey water and top up again. 
My hubby and me like to - sometimes visit a town / city do some shopping, a bite and a few drinks then head to our bed. we find a lot of campsites are usually out of town and not a handy walk back. So maybe this way they may feel they are getting some business from us. Im not saying we don't go onto campsites but most of the time we like to free wheel. 
Its a pity they don't realise that caravans mostly have to go to them but motorhomes don't always have to. 

Also ... these signs that are legal and not is there any chance that a pic could be put on so that we might know what to look for !! 

Now I guess this the start the thread up again !


----------



## Kontiki

Why is it we are seen as respectable law abiding citizens if we park on a campsite but become low life scum/criminals if we should park overnight without paying?  Also what is overnight?? The definition of night seems to be the period between sunset & sunrise. If I arrive somewhere after sunrise & leave before sunset have I overnighted? Appreciate that in the summer you wouldn't get much sleep but in the winter you could have a good lie in.

Noticed an article in the MCC may from Godfrey Bloom (UKIP MEP) about height barriers, he is president of the Drivers Union Drivers' Union not a fan of UKIP but have to agree with some of the issues they raise.


----------



## John H

Kontiki said:


> Also what is overnight?? The definition of night seems to be the period between sunset & sunrise. If I arrive somewhere after sunrise & leave before sunset have I overnighted? Appreciate that in the summer you wouldn't get much sleep but in the winter you could have a good lie in.



The short answer is that the term "no overnight parking" has no validity in law at all and if you see a sign that simply says that then it is probably meaningless. For a TRO to be valid, it must specify the PRECISE terms - eg no parking between the hours of 11pm and 8am. Thus it has always been relatively easy to spot which signs are simply put up as deterrents and which cannot be enforced.


----------



## Tommybago

Hi John H

As you can see we live in Ireland but we come over a lot to the Uk - we are from Sunderland originally.  but new to this motorhome/wildcamping thing  from 2012. So when we find somewhere to park up I just wanted to know that we are not going to get moved on or arrested!!! :sleep-040: 

Without been rude or objectionable to the person banging on your door , what is the best way to say F**K off.or sim.. if its the police !!


----------



## Kontiki

Probably nobody wants to have a confrontation about where they are parked for the night, also there is nothing worse than thinking you have found a nice spot for the night only to find out its the local hangout for the youngsters. Can't guess at the number of times having settled down for the night only to be disturbed by cars turning up playing loud music, deciding our van makes a nice turning point for their impromptu race track or even doggers (the latter we found weren't so much of a problem though). Always leave the van in a state ready to move off if we need to at short notice. 

Motorhomers just aren't accepted in this country as they are on the continent, we have had problems while stopping on aires but these are very rare. I personally don't think we will get aires like they have in France as much as would like them. We should maybe try to push for a right to be able to park (not camp) overnight without having to argue the point with anybody, signs discriminating against motor caravans shouldn't be allowed, it is our mode of transport for which we pay to use the roads. 

Campsites are missing out by not catering for the motor home owner who just wants to stop overninght, especially mid week & out of season, many of us wouldn't mind turning up at a campsite after 8pm & leaving before 9-10am & paying up to a fiver to get a good nights sleep.


----------



## John H

Tommybago said:


> Hi John H
> 
> As you can see we live in Ireland but we come over a lot to the Uk - we are from Sunderland originally.  but new to this motorhome/wildcamping thing  from 2012. So when we find somewhere to park up I just wanted to know that we are not going to get moved on or arrested!!! :sleep-040:
> 
> Without been rude or objectionable to the person banging on your door , what is the best way to say F**K off.or sim.. if its the police !!



If a sign has no reference to a TRO then it is probably unenforceable - especially if it says something vague like "no overnight parking" - but I always take the view that I'd rather not park where I'm not wanted. My motorhome is precious and I don't want it damaged by a local with a grudge, whatever the legal situation. However, you have to make individual judgements and some remote lay-bys with signs are far from anyone who might be disturbed and if you park discretely no-one will bother you.

As for getting rid of people who might knock at the door I find that a good way of dealing with them is to apologise profusely, say you didn't see any sign telling you not to park but now they've drawn your attention to it you will certainly give it consideration. Then ask them to show you their identification so you know who you're talking to. They will, of course, have no such identification because there is nothing to enforce if you are on the public highway. The police will be highly unlikely to trouble you. I have several friends in the police and they all say they have better things to do with their time. I know of no-one who has been woken up by the police under these circumstances. Be discrete and polite and you will be fine, in my view.


----------



## Deleted member 775

when we had our van only times we had any interest from the police was in a roundabout way for them to scrounge a cuppa  .if you are nice and give them a brew then you wont have any probs with them, and if you offer them  a bacon sandwich then they will love you forever  .


----------



## JoMutch

mandrake said:


> when we had our van only times we had any interest from the police was in a roundabout way for them to scrounge a cuppa  .if you are nice and give them a brew then you wont have any probs with them, and if you offer them  a bacon sandwich then they will love you forever  .




Works with MOD police as well


----------



## justdoitviv

*update*



justdoitviv said:


> This morning the council has erected a couple of signs in a local layby saying. No overnight sleeping and caravans. Nearest campsite is XXXXXX
> 
> Can the council do this?
> 
> I feel quite upset about this as I have used this layby, right by the sea, for about 30 years. It is not near any houses. I spend at least a third of my time in this layby. It is popular with motorhomes in summer, and fishermen all year round. I had a feeling this was going to happen as last year the council men were knocking on the doors of motorhomes saying they cant sleep the night. Even though there were no signs. There has never been a problem with waste laying around or rowdy behaviour that I know of. Last year for the first time, two caravans parked there long term, and made themselves at home. But this was the first time. Down the road is heavily populated with campsites, and chalets.
> 
> The reason why I am upset about this is that I used to park by some lakes, quarter of a mile from my home as well, and then the council put gates on the path so no one can drive in any more. I also parked up the road on the sand banks. Then the council made it an expensive paying car park, with no overnight sleeping. I also parked up the road, by the cliffs opposite the beach, then that was made into a car park. No my last remaining place has no overnight sleeping.
> 
> I feel my freedom and rights have slowly been stripped away.
> 
> The council I heard had complains from the campsite, which is now advertised on the notice board, that he was loosing business. I can understand it with caravans, but not motorhomes as most have their own electric, and carry water, so don't need a campsite. Surely with all these councils doing this, people will stop buy motorhomes as what is the point if you have to book into a campsite.
> 
> Is there anything I can do about this?
> Thanks



after two phone calls to the council, I am still waiting for them to inform me if they put up the signs. Weekly/daily, the signs are turned around facing different directions, and one has been pulled down. but there is a mystery here.!!!!!!!!!!!  The sign states, under the no overnight sleeping bit, "your nearest campsite is Muswell manor, 300m ahead. "  Well out of curiosity I called to find out the prices. They only have static caravans, and don't accept tourers.


----------



## alcam

shortcircuit said:


> Thanks for the feedback. If they did not provide detail of the traffic order, which I understand must be displayed on the sign, are the just huffing and puffing with no substance?


  Scottish and  English law differ . Does this TRO apply in Dundee ?


----------



## champstar

why would it apply in Dundee unless there is a specific TRO in force in that area for a specific spot


----------



## maureenandtom

Tommybago said:


> I came across this thread and have read a lot of the pages ... not all ! I get the idea that this will not get sorted/ changed .. unless we try approaching to start with campsite owners maybe ! Asking / suggesting that if they feel they are losing out with motorhomes that if they say offer a refresh/top up services of maybe £5 ! Where we can drop toilets, and grey water and top up again.
> My hubby and me like to - sometimes visit a town / city do some shopping, a bite and a few drinks then head to our bed. we find a lot of campsites are usually out of town and not a handy walk back. So maybe this way they may feel they are getting some business from us. Im not saying we don't go onto campsites but most of the time we like to free wheel.
> Its a pity they don't realise that caravans mostly have to go to them but motorhomes don't always have to.
> 
> Also ... these signs that are legal and not is there any chance that a pic could be put on so that we might know what to look for !!
> 
> Now I guess this the start the thread up again !



Sometimes councils will erect signs which they have no legal right to erect.  Like this council - North Yorks County Council.








The only way to know is to ask them;  they will be unwilling to tell you and you may have to ask using the Freedom of Information Act.

It is up to you then to decide whether you insist that the council bows to legality and removes the signs or whether you shouldn't make them angry by doing so.   I don't mind making them angry.


----------



## maureenandtom

I've never noticed them getting angry.  Just insufferably smug about it.    It's other motorhomers, some on here, who worry about coucnils getting angry.   I've often been told we must not get councils angry or they will do something worse than erect illegal signs.  

They might erect signs properly and with a legal process.    

Now wouldn't that be awful?   It would take all the fun out of wondering which are legal and which are not.  Now wouldn't that be boring?  Knowing that all our road signs meant what they said?

At least with legal process you get to have your say.  Let them get away with doing what they want outside the rules and you don't have a say.


----------



## maureenandtom

Yes, I'm sorry - my inadequate attempt at irony.  I've never grown used to the idea of using smileys.

Some councils have been told and some councils have removed illegal signs.  

I have no idea how many illegal signs there are around the country but I think there are a great many and, I think, some are still, even now, being erected.


----------



## landyrubbertramp

Councils don't get angry as the staff are just that staff they arnt that bothered after all it's unlikely le they live in the area of the parking . They are just following policy or in most cases making policy up as cllrs do not hold them to account properly . Parking issues are mainly down to residents giving local council and thiers cllrs grief till thier is enough protest because of lost votes for the cllrs then they attempt to crack a but wit a sledge hammer and as shown in many cases illegally . They turkey in ppl not parking when they erect an illegal sign and they know that 99 percent of ppl will not challenge the sign legally . I'm the one percent that do and ignore illegal signs .


----------



## Sharon the Cat

There were reports of the council in Anglesey recently putting up no overnight parking signs in response to residents complaints. The usual campervans leave rubbish sort of thing.
This was enough to put us off spending our money there. 
Why don't the councils tackle & prosecute the real problem - the litter louts, as I believe that there are already laws in place for this sort of problem?


----------



## landyrubbertramp

Hi Sharon the reason the council do not do enough to tackle litter and prosecute as even after a sussesful fine it costs the council more money a lot more than the fines worth and at the mommdnt it's all about money with the council also the person who drops the litter despite being in the wrong gets aggrieved stating thier are thrives and bank robbers yet they pick on me for a cig butt and tend from that moment be anti council with everyone esle from then on and vote if they do vote against which ever party controls the council . It's all about politics in afraid and hidden agendas


----------



## justdoitviv

*out in the papers tomorrow*



justdoitviv said:


> This morning the council has erected a couple of signs in a local layby saying. No overnight sleeping and caravans. Nearest campsite is XXXXXX
> 
> Can the council do this?
> 
> I feel quite upset about this as I have used this layby, right by the sea, for about 30 years. It is not near any houses. I spend at least a third of my time in this layby. It is popular with motorhomes in summer, and fishermen all year round. I had a feeling this was going to happen as last year the council men were knocking on the doors of motorhomes saying they cant sleep the night. Even though there were no signs. There has never been a problem with waste laying around or rowdy behaviour that I know of. Last year for the first time, two caravans parked there long term, and made themselves at home. But this was the first time. Down the road is heavily populated with campsites, and chalets.
> 
> The reason why I am upset about this is that I used to park by some lakes, quarter of a mile from my home as well, and then the council put gates on the path so no one can drive in any more. I also parked up the road on the sand banks. Then the council made it an expensive paying car park, with no overnight sleeping. I also parked up the road, by the cliffs opposite the beach, then that was made into a car park. No my last remaining place has no overnight sleeping.
> 
> I feel my freedom and rights have slowly been stripped away.
> 
> The council I heard had complains from the campsite, which is now advertised on the notice board, that he was loosing business. I can understand it with caravans, but not motorhomes as most have their own electric, and carry water, so don't need a campsite. Surely with all these councils doing this, people will stop buy motorhomes as what is the point if you have to book into a campsite.
> 
> Is there anything I can do about this?
> Thanks


The council finally called me today, after the reporters called them,  to say they did put the signs up, there is no tro, its only advisory and not enforceable. The local parish requested the signs put up to help the local businesses (campsite down the road), and because of environmental issues like rubbish. He couldn't comment on the cost of these signs or if the money came from rate payers, or the fact that environmental health workers were knocking on peoples doors at 6am telling them they cant park there, and must use the campsite, as its different council departments.

So the story runs tomorrow in the local paper.

 Campaigner Andy Strangway will be assisting on this matter, and my neighbours who are wild campers and local campaigners for Sheppey will be writing the emails and putting forward ideas of other possibilities for the layby .....like more bins. I am not good at official letter writing, and don't cope with stress well, and cant afford to upset the council as they issue me with my business licence every 5 years, so all I will be doing is research to see what other councils are offering for motorhomers, and forwarding them to my neighbour. For this I have started another thread asking for links.

Thank you all for your help. I will post any developments which have been achieved, (or not) although it might take a while as I have a feeling nothing gets done quickly when dealing with the council.


----------



## landyrubbertramp

Hi wints I was not referring to me lol I did have one cig at 15 and after one drag realised smoking was not for me lol


----------



## Deleted member 38556

I do not think the penny has dropped  yet 
Just retread what you have written 

You use a layby. And other parking areas. For years 
Then you wonder why the council has put up restriction signs 


Just may be you have over stayed your welcome just a little 

I wild 90% of the time. I do not stay at one spot I move on 
It's the gypsies in large groups staying for  weeks  that get the places noticed. I find if you keep below the radar and don't over stay. People done go reporting to the council 



justdoitviv said:


> This morning the council has erected a couple of signs in a local layby saying. No overnight sleeping and caravans. Nearest campsite is XXXXXX
> 
> Can the council do this?
> 
> I feel quite upset about this as I have used this layby, right by the sea, for about 30 years. It is not near any houses. I spend at least a third of my time in this layby. It is popular with motorhomes in summer, and fishermen all year round. I had a feeling this was going to happen as last year the council men were knocking on the doors of motorhomes saying they cant sleep the night. Even though there were no signs. There has never been a problem with waste laying around or rowdy behaviour that I know of. Last year for the first time, two caravans parked there long term, and made themselves at home. But this was the first time. Down the road is heavily populated with campsites, and chalets.
> 
> The reason why I am upset about this is that I used to park by some lakes, quarter of a mile from my home as well, and then the council put gates on the path so no one can drive in any more. I also parked up the road on the sand banks. Then the council made it an expensive paying car park, with no overnight sleeping. I also parked up the road, by the cliffs opposite the beach, then that was made into a car park. No my last remaining place has no overnight sleeping.
> 
> I feel my freedom and rights have slowly been stripped away.
> 
> The council I heard had complains from the campsite, which is now advertised on the notice board, that he was loosing business. I can understand it with caravans, but not motorhomes as most have their own electric, and carry water, so don't need a campsite. Surely with all these councils doing this, people will stop buy motorhomes as what is the point if you have to book into a campsite.
> 
> Is there anything I can do about this?
> Thanks


----------



## Deleted member 38556

What is council TAX??? 

Not had any of that for years n years now 

Lucky me !!!!


----------



## FULL TIMER

who said council tax  what's that , does it come with a telly licence

how's it going Ian, looks like we'll be seeing you at Rutland we're out and about most of that week then heading to the Brandon Meet for a night or two


----------



## John H

maureenandtom said:


> Sometimes councils will erect signs which they have no legal right to erect.  Like this council - North Yorks County Council.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to know is to ask them;  they will be unwilling to tell you and you may have to ask using the Freedom of Information Act.
> 
> It is up to you then to decide whether you insist that the council bows to legality and removes the signs or whether you shouldn't make them angry by doing so.   I don't mind making them angry.



There is nothing illegal about putting up a sign saying "No Overnight Parking". It would be illegal if they attempted to impose a penalty but a deterrent sign is not illegal in itself. 

As for knowing whether or not any sign has the backing of a TRO, then the answer is that if all it says is "no overnighting" then it doesn't. You don't have to do any research at all; the term "no overnighting" has no legal meaning. If the sign says no parking between the hours of xx and xx then it may have the backing of a TRO, which will usually be referred to on the sign and which should be publicly available from the council. Any attempt to withhold that information can be taken to mean that there is no TRO - if there were then the council would be only too willing to release it. Thus the picture is much clearer in reality than some would like us to believe. 

And it has nothing to do with not making councils angry - simple common sense says that if you approach councils politely you are more likely to get what you want than if you attack them from the start.


----------



## Firefox

Yes, I wish people would stop talking about illegal signs. 

They are not illegal just advisory, and everything was fine; we could ignore the signs in peace. Until that is, certain people have seen fit to meddle on the grounds of their own interpretation, for the sake of personal crusades. And some of those people have also been rude and confrontational to the councils. 

A fine way to represent motor-homers, alienate councils, and ensure we don't get listened to for some time to come.


----------



## John H

I tend to agree with you that it is disreputable - and when I was a council leader I refused to sanction any such signs. My point, however, is that it is simply wrong to say they are illegal. You never win an argument by getting your facts wrong.

Further, since we all know those signs are unenforceable, do we really want to push councils into a corner where they use TROs as a first resort rather than a last one? I cannot see that would be of any benefit to us at all. This is not about letting councils get away with something; it is about doing what is likely to benefit us.


----------



## maureenandtom

Firefox said:


> Yes, I wish people would stop talking about illegal signs.
> 
> They are not illegal just advisory, and everything was fine; *we could ignore the signs in peace*. Until that is, certain people have seen fit to meddle on the grounds of their own interpretation, for the sake of personal crusades. And some of those people have also been rude and confrontational to the councils.
> 
> A fine way to represent motor-homers, alienate councils, and ensure we don't get listened to for some time to come.



No - you couldn't ignore the signs in peace.   All those without your knowledge, seeing you ignore the signs, will assume that you are an irresponsible lawbreaker.  They will revile and abuse you and believe all motorhomers as irresponsible as you seem, to them, to be.  You will be one those who spoil things for the rest of us.


----------



## maureenandtom

I believe it is right to call the signs illegal.   It has long been established that while individuals may do anything which is not probibited, Government may only do that which is specifically authorised.   This is why councils back down and remove illegal signs.  If they were legal then councils would see no need to remove them.


----------



## maureenandtom

John H said:


> I tend to agree with you that it is disreputable - and when I was a council leader I refused to sanction any such signs. My point, however, is that it is simply wrong to say they are illegal. You never win an argument by getting your facts wrong.
> 
> Further, since we all know those signs are unenforceable, do we really want to push councils into a corner where they use TROs as a first resort rather than a last one? I cannot see that would be of any benefit to us at all. This is not about letting councils get away with something; it is about doing what is likely to benefit us.



_*where they use TROs as a first resort rather than a last one*_

And where we will have the possibility of putting forward our views on the matter


----------



## John H

maureenandtom said:


> I believe it is right to call the signs illegal.   It has long been established that while individuals may do anything which is not probibited, Government may only do that which is specifically authorised.   This is why councils back down and remove illegal signs.  If they were legal then councils would see no need to remove them.



That is, quite simply, factually wrong. If you believe the signs are illegal, I expect to see from you a long list of councils that have been prosecuted for breaking the law. 

As for removing the signs, well I'd have thought the reason for that is obvious - a deterrent ceases to have any effect if it is widely published that it has no force behind it. The signs then become so much waste metal. The real point here is that you are forcing councils then into a position where their FIRST resort is a TRO - who, apart from you, thinks that is a good idea? 

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question to you of some time ago - how many councils have been persuaded to welcome us through your favoured aggressive method?


----------



## maureenandtom

I told you.  There doesn't seem much point writing these posts if you don't read them.

That's an interesting point you made  _"I expect to see from you a long list of councils that have been prosecuted for breaking the law."_ and it stumped me.   I don't know of any.   I do know, however, of a few who have backed down when faced with legal action and I do know of many who have had their PCNs overturned through the appeals process - that's akin to a legal process, yes?

And I think the latest, greatest, is the overturning of that PCN in York quite recently,  Lendal Bridge, was it?

I think, and believe, that unless the council has a specific law it can quote for erecting signs without due process then if it does it has acted illegally.  Not only disreputably but illegally.   My post earlier quoted NYCC admitting that it had no rule permitting it to erect signs.  I think, and believe, that without a rule permitting it, it did not have permission (ie authority) to erect them.


----------



## John H

maureenandtom said:


> I told you.  There doesn't seem much point writing these posts if you don't read them.
> 
> That's an interesting point you made  _"I expect to see from you a long list of councils that have been prosecuted for breaking the law."_ and it stumped me.   I don't know of any.   I do know, however, of a few who have backed down when faced with legal action and I do know of many who have had their PCNs overturned through the appeals process - that's akin to a legal process, yes?
> 
> And I think the latest, greatest, is the overturning of that PCN in York quite recently,  Lendal Bridge, was it?
> 
> I think, and believe, that unless the council has a specific law it can quote for erecting signs without due process then if it does it has acted illegally.  Not only disreputably but illegally.   My post earlier quoted NYCC admitting that it had no rule permitting it to erect signs.  I think, and believe, that without a rule permitting it, it did not have permission (ie authority) to erect them.



Well, since I missed it, perhaps you could post a link to your list?

And I am beginning to realise that trying to have a rational debate with you is very nearly impossible. If a council tries to issue a PCN when there isn't a TRO then that IS illegal. No-one would dispute that but it is not the point at issue here. Quite simply, a council that puts up a deterrent notice without any attempt to enforce it is doing nothing illegal. That is fact. It matters not a jot that you don't like it; it is NOT illegal.

If you seriously believe that council's need a law in order to erect a deterrent sign, then I repeat, give me a list of councils that have been prosecuted for putting up deterrent signs.


----------



## maureenandtom

John H said:


> Well, since I missed it, perhaps you could post a link to your list?
> 
> And I am beginning to realise that trying to have a rational debate with you is very nearly impossible. If a council tries to issue a PCN when there isn't a TRO then that IS illegal. No-one would dispute that but it is not the point at issue here. Quite simply, a council that puts up a deterrent notice without any attempt to enforce it is doing nothing illegal. That is fact. It matters not a jot that you don't like it; it is NOT illegal.
> 
> *If you seriously believe that council's need a law in order to erect a deterrent sign,* then I repeat, give me a list of councils that have been prosecuted for putting up deterrent signs.



I do seriously believe it.


----------



## Kontiki

Its probably ben asked before but has anybody been prosecuted or does anybody know anybody that has been taken to court over sleeping in a motorhome for ignoring a sign prohibiting them regardless of the sign being unlawful/illegal?? Unless it goes to court then it would be interesting to see the outcome, if somebody gets a fine then just pays up without challenging it, isn't that almost like these parking 'fines' that are issued by private firms which in law are just an invoice.


----------



## maureenandtom

A surprisingly reasonable analogy.

But let's suppose, further, that the council thought it a good idea to limit the speed to 20mph.  As a deterrent, let's say.   Not bothering to go through the legal process of making a proper order - just deciding to put up a sign.  To be a deterrent, it would have to look legal.

The policeman might not know that the sign was purely advisory - probably wouldn't know.  We certainly would not know - unless it was printed off on A4 and encapsulated in plastic and mounted with sticky back tape.

I do not think the council has a right to erect such signs.


----------



## maureenandtom

Kontiki said:


> Its probably ben asked before but has anybody been prosecuted or does anybody know anybody that has been taken to court over sleeping in a motorhome for ignoring a sign prohibiting them regardless of the sign being unlawful/illegal?? Unless it goes to court then it would be interesting to see the outcome, if somebody gets a fine then just pays up without challenging it, isn't that almost like these parking 'fines' that are issued by private firms which in law are just an invoice.



It's unlikely that anyone would be taken to court.  A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) need not be considered by a court - though there is a way you can force it.  A by-law contravention can be considered by a court if you refuse a Fixed Penalty Charge.   Most parking contraventions will be dealt with by a Penalty Charge Notice and you will need to go through the appeals process.  I guess most will just pay up and we'd never hear of them.

I have received a PCN for overnight sleeping.  I refused to pay it.  From the outset I made it clear that the appeals process would end in a court.  There is a route to a court.  The council backed down, cancelled the PCN and, ultimately, allowed overnight parking in some of its car parks.


----------



## John H

maureenandtom said:


> A surprisingly reasonable analogy.
> 
> But let's suppose, further, that the council thought it a good idea to limit the speed to 20mph.  As a deterrent, let's say.   Not bothering to go through the legal process of making a proper order - just deciding to put up a sign.  To be a deterrent, it would have to look legal.
> 
> The policeman might not know that the sign was purely advisory - probably wouldn't know.  We certainly would not know - unless it was printed off on A4 and encapsulated in plastic and mounted with sticky back tape.
> 
> I do not think the council has a right to erect such signs.



Yes a good analogy but not in the sense that you see it - if a policeman stops people to give advice based on his observation then that is perfectly reasonable (deterrent) but if he starts giving the impression that people are committing an offence when they are not he lays himself open to disciplinary action.

And once again you display your ignorance of how the system works - a council cannot use a sign that could be mistaken for a statutory one if there is no statutory order - that WOULD be an offence. If, however, they put up advisory signs that are clearly different from statutory ones then that is perfectly legal.,


----------



## John H

maureenandtom said:


> I do seriously believe it.



So, to sum up:

1. You cannot point to one example of where a council has changed its mind about overnight parking because of the belligerent and aggressive approach that you favour yet you say this is the way forward.

2. You cannot point to one example of where a council has been prosecuted for putting up advisory signs and yet you still claim they are illegal.

Your judgement leaves a lot to be desired, doesn't it?


----------



## John H

You are capable of good reasoned argument, David, but too often you resort to silly insults and it does not reflect well on you. I do not and never have defended the public sector at every turn but I do object to nonsensical generalisations by people such as you who think that the public sector is always suspect.

Now back to the point. A driver is expected to know the Highway Code. It is part of the driving test. He/she is therefore expected to be able to identify road signs and their meanings. "No Overnight Parking" is not and has never been in the Highway Code. If he/she is put off by the sign then its deterrent effect works and the council's wishes are achieved. If he/she knows what he/she should know then the deterrent effect hasn't worked. Simple, really.

I am not saying that I approve of councils putting up deterrent signs (in fact I have repeatedly said I found it unacceptable when I was a councillor) but it is totally misleading to say that they have no right to do so. Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal (or even unlawful).


----------



## John H

Pleased to see you spotted the intended irony!

Your second paragraph, however, is a nonsense - as you must realise if you re-read it. Councils are democratically elected. If they democratically decide to act on behalf of their electors then YES that is ok (providing they don't act illegally, of course). Some will not like it. That is democracy. 

And I am not defending councils who put up deterrent signs. I have clearly stated on many occasions that I don't like it. What I am saying is that it is wrong to say they are illegal and that council's have no right to erect them. They DO have that right - whether you or I approve of those signs or not.

And, if you were taken to court for a traffic offence, I don't think it would be accepted as a defence to say that you couldn't be expected to be familiar with the Highway Code!

Glad that your weather is good - up here in the Highlands it is p*ssing down!


----------



## stevensi

It has taken me several days following this thread, and 16 full pages, before I decided to comment. 

I don't believe these signs to be illegal,  or unlawful.  I do believe that the decision to install them is unethical. Now, I seem to remember that when I got my training as a Councillor (yes, they are trained in what they are supposed to be doing), I was told that any decisions I voted on had to be ethically sound.  

Each Council should adopt a Code of Conduct and that normally covers this sort of thing. So each Councillor who voted in favour of these signs 'could' be in breach.

However, it matters very little. Personally I would make a decision on whether to stay in a laybye/carpark based more on my surroundings and whether I thought I would be in danger than one of these signs.  I do understand that local Councillors often feel obligated to take action, even when only one resident approaches them, but I wish they would engage brain first.

The Public Sector gets lots of stick, some of it deserved, but there are some great people who give up their own time to try to help their communities. It is a hard and thankless task. Sadly it attracts those who seek power and they are sometimes the loudest shouters. I have left the political party that I have supported all my life because I was sickened by what I saw. 

I would expect that there are people living in these areas who own motorhomes and wild camp. They need to be speaking to the Council and putting forward a view and their objections to such signs. I would hope that Councillors would listen and stop to think. Sadly some are swayed by imotive statements about litter, freeloaders,  damage, travellers and so on. Only by explaining that a vast majority of motorhomers are normal people, with money to put into the local  economy,  can we hope to get our argument across.

And then when we lose the argument,  we rip down the  signs and camp on the mayors lawn. NOT!


----------



## John H

If councillors delegate decisions to officers and don't keep an eye on their decisions then that is not the fault of the officers; it is the fault of the councillors. Either way, if democratically elected councillors delegate decisions then those decisions, by definition, have democratic force.

And, no, I cannot see the point you are trying to make in your second paragraph. If a council "dreams up" a sign then it has no legal backing, the driver (and astute reader of the Highway Code) would know that it has no legal backing.


----------



## Greytop

*Just tell them you are a Traveller.*

Whoever comes knocking on your door then surely if we told the that we were travellers then they could not move us on. Naturally you would need the hard faced neck to do it but then the council would be helpless to act. Here in Scarborough, and I believe all councils, they have a policy dictating how they must treat travellers. It also state that they cannot move them on until the formalities are gone through!!!

Gypsy and traveller sites | Scarborough Borough Council

I mean it is not as if Gypsies and Travellers have ID cards or passports verifying that they are travellers do they?

Quote from the Council document.

Q. Can the Council remove Gypsies/Travellers from their land immediately?

A. No, the Council must:


show that the Gypsies/Travellers are on the land without consent;
make enquiries regarding the general health, welfare and children's education;
ensure that the Human Rights Acts 1998 has been fully complied with;
follow a set procedure in terms of proving ownership of land and details of the illegal encampment that will enable them to
successfully obtain the necessary authority from the Courts to order the Gypsies/Travellers to leave the site.


----------



## John H

Greytop said:


> Whoever comes knocking on your door then surely if we told the that we were travellers then they could not move us on.



An interesting solution - and it got me thinking. Has anyone ever been told to immediately move on by any Council official - other than where there is a specific TRO which would apply to all, traveller or not? I know of no-one, so does the problem really exist?


----------



## yorkslass

it"s interesting reading the various views put forward but it doesn"t stop those with power doing what they want. I have just read another thread announcing impending prosecution of motorhomers who have stayed at huttoft terrace.  in my opinion, trying to take on councils is a waste of time, they have the money and the law behind them. most conflicts in the past have ended up with the protagonists having to sit down together to negotiate, or alternatively if you don"t put your head above the parapet you won"t be fired at.


----------



## Alfie100

*Council losing chance for revenue*

Why don't the council realise they have the opportunity to raise revenue to help pay for the upkeep of the terrace. Most respectable and tidy Motorhomers would gladly pay for overnight parking. Perhaps with a maximum of 3 or 4 nights.


----------



## justdoitviv

*misunderstanding*



Motorhomelover said:


> I do not think the penny has dropped  yet
> Just retread what you have written
> 
> You use a layby. And other parking areas. For years
> Then you wonder why the council has put up restriction signs
> 
> 
> Just may be you have over stayed your welcome just a little
> 
> I wild 90% of the time. I do not stay at one spot I move on
> It's the gypsies in large groups staying for  weeks  that get the places noticed. I find if you keep below the radar and don't over stay. People done go reporting to the council


 I don't know how this misunderstanding occurred.  I am not good at correspondence. I live a few hundred yards from the layby. I arrive at about 9 or 10pm but could be 1 am,  and leave for work at about 4 or 5 am.  whyt is always this layby....is because the council restricted the other 3 or 4 I used.


----------



## justdoitviv

*possible misunderstanding*



Motorhomelover said:


> I do not think the penny has dropped  yet
> Just retread what you have written
> 
> You use a layby. And other parking areas. For years
> Then you wonder why the council has put up restriction signs
> 
> 
> Just may be you have over stayed your welcome just a little
> 
> I wild 90% of the time. I do not stay at one spot I move on
> It's the gypsies in large groups staying for  weeks  that get the places noticed. I find if you keep below the radar and don't over stay. People done go reporting to the council


,. 
I live down the road. I arrive sometimes 6 pm, sometimes 11 pm, If I am under a great deal of stress......I will drive here at 1am...to this layby. I am gone  usually  at 5am if I have early work, or by 7 am if work is not pressing. (need to get home to shower etc before work)....I don't live here in the layby. If I am lucky to have the week end off...I might be here for 36 hours. This refers to shellness, as I no longer use any other area I previously used, as I no longer have dependant kids.

The other areas I used....was for beach parties for my kids birthdays as they grew up. Instead of upsetting my neighbours with loud noise...we used the beach. So 3 times a year as I have 3 kids. Then add on special occasions, like valentines, bonfire night. Both my neighbours with kids also used the beach for parties...that's where I got the idea from...It isolated, away from houses, and in my opinion , especially as I am now living next door to the neighbours from hell with over 25 members living there...the least offensive to neighbours. 

I am sad that the next generation can not enjoy what myself and neighbours kids enjoyed. Its better to have of group of 14.15.16  year olds on a beach under supervision of adult, fishing and bbq and listening to music,   than have them throwing stones at windows and causing trouble in town and getting drunk on cider because of boredom and causing problems in town. My kids can not offer their kids or their partners kids the life they enjoyed. 

 Pre 14  of age, we enjoyed another venue...as a cheap cost....no one mined paying the cost.......that's not possible  now  to even pay to be there.........


I am not good at communications and expressing myself so sometimes I confuse people..i have apologised several times over on several threads.


----------



## justdoitviv

*yes*



John H said:


> An interesting solution - and it got me thinking. Has anyone ever been told to immediately move on by any Council official - other than where there is a specific TRO which would apply to all, traveller or not? I know of no-one, so does the problem really exist?


 YES HERE IN SHELLNESS. When knocking on the door at 5 to 6 am, people were told not to be here tomorrow. Recently in sussex I was told 24 hours to be off the beach or 500 pound fine


----------



## John H

justdoitviv said:


> YES HERE IN SHELLNESS. When knocking on the door at 5 to 6 am, people were told not to be here tomorrow. Recently in sussex I was told 24 hours to be off the beach or 500 pound fine



Were you told to move on by an official (as opposed to an angry member of the public or self-appointed guardian) and is there a TRO/by-law in force at this spot? If the answer to the former is yes and to the latter is no then it would be the first example I have heard of and I would be very interested to hear on what basis they thought you should move.


----------



## justdoitviv

*success*

I apologise to those interested who had to read through 17 pages, like I had to, and had no idea this would go to all those pages. after all, its just a little layby...

The good news is , thanks to andy **********....... all these illegal signs are being removed. I am here tonight to check on the progress.

Although now in a retirement age, I only use the one location, I wanted several locations challenged, for the next generation. I wanted whatever grand kiddies I might have, or my neighbours, and theirs, to enjoy the freedom, all of my generation had...the freedom to play music on the beach, cast a few rods out, have a good deal of friends around, have burgers and sausages on the bbq,  fall asleep when needed, wake up next day to breakfast on the bbq.... no neighbours nearby.....nearest  neighbour is 0.7 miles..........This was not possible for 10 years because of the illegal or enforceable signs. 

I have always been a passive and submissive person......and sadly always took the easy path / route.......submit/ accept.

Having been humbled by andys motto..........you deserve what you get cause you do nothing about it.......you just accept cause its the easy route.......

He was so right........but I just didn't know how to stand up for myself or to question.....I mean .one just does not question the police or council or anyone who is a man..

I am a new person........or trying to be......traveling recently from sandbanks to all along the coast line....back home......challenging the signs.......with andy giving me advise.........

I come home to find...... signs are being removed...........

Please be courageous when you feel you cant be.... Do take that first step....especially if you are a female/male traveling alone. It takes the first step to make you be courageous about other areas in your life....
Because I felt so passionate about this layby......and was determined to do something about it....with assistance, it has given me courage to challenge other areas in my personal life.....and I am a stronger person all round.


----------



## Deleted member 775

John H said:


> An interesting solution - and it got me thinking. Has anyone ever been told to immediately move on by any Council official - other than where there is a specific TRO which would apply to all, traveller or not? I know of no-one, so does the problem really exist?



well ,i have traveled this land of ours in cars ,vans ,and our motor home we had since the late 60s ,up to a few years ago .we have lived in our last van aswell for nigh on two years .and at no time were we told to move on ,by the council/police or for that matter locals that lived in houses close to where we parked up .we parked in local housing estates ,lay byes and public car parks, town centers, middle of nowhere , and industrial estates ,in fact if i could park i did do (we even overnighted once near to londons kings cross station a few years back ) anyway many had notices saying no overnighting or sleeping in vehicles ,no camping and no cooking in vehicles , and i have never been told to move on the only time i had any hassle was from ignorant boy racers ,and that was once only . if or when we get another van we will still keep on wild camping irrespective of notices that may or may not be there .personally i never looked for them . we always had one rule arrive late and leave early and leave no trace ,except our memories and of those we have many over the years .i think our first recollection of wild camping was in my uncles old scout bell tent ,on top of scalby mills cliffs at scarborough , when we were first married in the early 70s ,i even managed to get our old vauxhall HA viva that cost all of a fiver  in 1972 to the top of the cliffs as-well ,god knows how . 
there will always be wild camping available if we decide to ignore the notices that councils decide to put up.


----------



## Tow Itch

No idea how many of you have ever looked at the TSRGD or the manual that accompanies it. There is a draft TSRGD out for "consultation" with release intended for 2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/307150/draft-dft-circular.pdf
It's supposedly is about reducing sign clutter and does to remove regulations on signs One change is on terminal signs for speed changes. Expect to get nicked for speeding when you have no idea of a speed limit change. Another change isn't about the signs themselves but unless I've miss read things will make a big difference to parking restrictions.



> Traffic orders
> 3.5 The requirement for an underpinning traffic order has been removed for the following:  Single or double yellow line waiting prohibitions  Stopping on school entrance markings prohibitions  Exception for cycles at no entry, mandatory turns, and left or right turn
> prohibitions
>  Mandatory cycle lanes


----------



## Flyboy

*Camp sites*

Makes me wonder sometimes when i read about all us camper van and motor homers who apparently fill are larders full to the brim with food from the shops in the area that we live in and fill up with fuel too.
I think common sense will tell you the more you put in your van the heavier it will be so the more fuel we use so the need to fill up when there is necessary. And as for filling up cupboards with tons of food which no doubt would mostly tinned and dry foods Don't think so?.

Back to the campsites that are apparently loosing money because of us selfish campers I wonder where the owners of these campsites  the ones that have there own camping shops on site where we can buy over priced goods Do you think they go to the corner shops in their own little towns or villages to buy all their stock and help keep the local economy running Do they hell  they go to the out of town wholesalers buy as cheap and sell expensively as possible. I know that when i go anywhere on my travels  for a few days or weeks  i use the cafes when sight seeing. use the pubs for food and drink use their petrol stations Their DIY shops, Their Souvenir shops, Their Fishing tackle shops, Spend £20-50 quid a day to fish on their waters use the local launderette.

Rant Over.


----------



## Deleted member 967

Back on Topic again.

The TSRGD prescribes the designs and conditions of use for traffic signs, (which includes road markings, traffic signals and pedestrian crossings), to be lawfully placed on or near roads in England, Scotland and Wales, with a limited number prescribed for use only in England or in Scotland.

The TSRGD contains all the signs that are *prescribed* to be erected on the highway.   Local Authorities can also apply to the Secretary of State for *approval *of a sign that is not currently in the TSRGD.  Only these signs can be displayed on the highway.  The highway includes a band up to the building line or fence line or 15 yards from the road in the case of common land.  Unofficial signs are therefor unlawful.

The TSRO contains a *prescribed* sign that used together with a P sign to indicate parking place for caravans towed by cars and Motor caravans.   



There is a *prescribed* prohibition sign prohibiting the parking of caravans towed by a motor vehicle.


There is a no waiting sign (Approved sign R) that has been *approved *for use in England.  This sign is to prohibit the waiting for motor caravans, between certain hours.  
 

Please note the words that are permitted, anything else is not.  This sign is not approved for use in Wales or Scotland.  This has been determined by use of FOI requests.   Northern Ireland has its own regulations.  Any new signs not conforming to this are therefor unlawful.

Motorhomes are strange beasts, not quite fitting into the law as it relates to cars.  
Try finding anything to do with motorhomes in the Highway Code and you’ll be disappointed.  But they are still road vehicles,  

Responsible motor caravanners' will want to obey the law but it is sometimes hard to find out just what those laws are – and you may be surprised to learn that it can often be just as difficult for the enforcement authorities.

Legally, motorhomes do not quite fit into the law on cars, nor those on heavier vehicles, but lie somewhere in between. So what is a ‘Motorhome’? or ‘motor caravan’, or ‘living van’, ‘leisure vehicle’, or ’campervan’ for that matter? There is not even one agreed description in English for it!

They are defined under Directive 2002/24/EC as Special purpose, Motor vehicles with at least four wheels: Category M: used for the carriage of passengers

5. "Special purpose vehicle" means a vehicle of category M, N or O for conveying passengers or goods and for performing a special function for which special body arrangements and/or equipment are necessary.

 5.1. "Motor caravan" means a special purpose M category vehicle constructed to include living accommodation which contains at least the following equipment:

 - seats and table,

 - sleeping accommodation which may be converted from the seats,

 - cooking facilities, and

 - storage facilities.

This equipment shall be rigidly fixed to the living compartment; however, the table may be designed to be easily removable. 

So we have a situation where a Motorhome is a vehicle defined under the 1984/88 Road Traffic Act as a "motor car" if it weighs under 3050kg unladen or a "heavy motor car" of over that weight.   However speed limits are defined for vehicle above or below 3500kg laden.  Confusing!  Speed limits relate to un-laden weight not laden.

The Department for Transport (DfT) vehicle stats, do not know either.   When asked about the number of motorhomes registered in the UK I received the following data
Licenced	2014
	March
Category	2014 q1
Missing	166,170
M1	          10,464
N1	          17,515
N2	            1,884
Other	  37,749
Total	        233,782
SORN	  37,634
Total	        271,416

M! are passenger vehicles N1 and N2 are goods vehicles.  Yet "Directive 2002/24/EC" specifies Motorhomes as *Special Purpose, Motor vehicles with at least four wheels:   Category M: used for the carriage of passengers.*  So what are "Missing" and "Other".  They are obviously taxed, MOTd and Insured to be licenced.  I have not used the individual figures for SORN.

Reading the vehicle categories there is no provision for Special Purpose, passenger carrying, goods vehicles.

Caravan sites are not what they were when set up under The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.  This Act was amended in 1968 to accommodate units, larger than those that could be legally towed on the road and twin units.   Sites have increasing been turned into parks for Static Residential and Holiday Units and increasingly now lodges.  Their initial function as places for touring has been lost.   However local authorities licence them as caravan sites.  Many local authority official do not understand, or refuse to accept, that there is a difference.  Some seem to think they are car parks for Motorhomes that you can just drop into or leave as you wish using the dump facilities on site with no need to book.  Again this had become apparent from FOI requests.

Laws have been passed to regulate the Residential Parks and in Wales a move is afoot to do the same for Holiday Static Parks.  However all if these new regulations define the unit as a caravan using most of the definition of a caravan in the 1960 Act.

The Highways Agency has issued a new circular defining the activities that can take place on Motorway Service Areas.  This replaces the 2008 circular.  The 2013 circular has removed the whole section from the 2008 on concerning motorhomes pars 81 to 84.  This provided the possibility of MSA providing drinking water and waste (black and grey) water disposal facilities on MSAs.   Again motorhome users have been disregarded by those drafting UK regulations. 

Unless we make our presence felt we will lose more and more facilities.

Northern Ireland has an approved sign for motorhome facilities.   This has been recommended for inclusion in the 2015 TSRGD



This sign at present is not approved for use in the rest of the UK.  Northern Ireland and the Republic now have Aire similar to the rest of Europe.  The UK has no Aires with services only a few stopover locations, such as Hawick and Torridge.


----------



## Deleted member 967

Flyboy said:


> Makes me wonder sometimes when i read about all us camper van and motor homers who apparently fill are larders full to the brim with food from the shops in the area that we live in and fill up with fuel too.
> I think common sense will tell you the more you put in your van the heavier it will be so the more fuel we use so the need to fill up when there is necessary. And as for filling up cupboards with tons of food which no doubt would mostly tinned and dry foods Don't think so?.
> 
> Back to the campsites that are apparently loosing money because of us selfish campers I wonder where the owners of these campsites  the ones that have there own camping shops on site where we can buy over priced goods Do you think they go to the corner shops in their own little towns or villages to buy all their stock and help keep the local economy running Do they hell  they go to the out of town wholesalers buy as cheap and sell expensively as possible. I know that when i go anywhere on my travels  for a few days or weeks  i use the cafes when sight seeing. use the pubs for food and drink use their petrol stations Their DIY shops, Their Souvenir shops, Their Fishing tackle shops, Spend £20-50 quid a day to fish on their waters use the local launderette.
> 
> Rant Over.



80% of Motorhomes are licenced for road use at any one time (DfT) vehicle stats.  A maximum of 20% are SORNED in December of any year from 2011 to 3013.  This drops to 11% in summer.  Caravan sites are only open during a season normally Easter to October at the longest.  This closed season is imposed on them, by the licence issued by the local authority.  Abroad a lot of closed caravan site have Aire facilities open all year.  Our local authorities don't want to know this.


----------



## justdoitviv

*agree*



Flyboy said:


> Makes me wonder sometimes when i read about all us camper van and motor homers who apparently fill are larders full to the brim with food from the shops in the area that we live in and fill up with fuel too.
> I think common sense will tell you the more you put in your van the heavier it will be so the more fuel we use so the need to fill up when there is necessary. And as for filling up cupboards with tons of food which no doubt would mostly tinned and dry foods Don't think so?.
> 
> Back to the campsites that are apparently loosing money because of us selfish campers I wonder where the owners of these campsites  the ones that have there own camping shops on site where we can buy over priced goods Do you think they go to the corner shops in their own little towns or villages to buy all their stock and help keep the local economy running Do they hell  they go to the out of town wholesalers buy as cheap and sell expensively as possible. I know that when i go anywhere on my travels  for a few days or weeks  i use the cafes when sight seeing. use the pubs for food and drink use their petrol stations Their DIY shops, Their Souvenir shops, Their Fishing tackle shops, Spend £20-50 quid a day to fish on their waters use the local launderette.
> 
> Rant Over.


I worked out this week, financially, I cant be on the road that often with current expenditure. I need to do some cut back money wise. Being single, I cant be bothered to cook...so with fags, breakfast,  dinner at cafe out, bait for the day, replacement of a few fishing stuff etc,  large  bottle of water...works out at £30 min a day.


----------



## justdoitviv

*camp site*



John Thompson said:


> 80% of Motorhomes are licenced for road use at any one time (DfT) vehicle stats.  A maximum of 20% are SORNED in December of any year from 2011 to 3013.  This drops to 11% in summer.  Caravan sites are only open during a season normally Easter to October at the longest.  This closed season is imposed on them, by the licence issued by the local authority.  Abroad a lot of closed caravan site have Aire facilities open all year.  Our local authorities don't want to know this.



There is a partition going around to sign/join up for an aire... once again

My last trip ...... with an energy problem  in the van, i tried to get into a campsite.  Had to drive some 80 miles inland .......every other campsite was full. Got there and they didn't have any electric hook ups. 

Why are the council trying to get us to use campsites, when there are all full?


----------



## justdoitviv

*not sure*



John H said:


> Were you told to move on by an official (as opposed to an angry member of the public or self-appointed guardian) and is there a TRO/by-law in force at this spot? If the answer to the former is yes and to the latter is no then it would be the first example I have heard of and I would be very interested to hear on what basis they thought you should move.



Sorry, not ignoring you, just not computer literate. pressed some buttons and your question came up.

I was told to move on officially... 24 hours notice , 12 people got the letter...i have a letter telling me so,  delivered to me by hand. Don't think there is a tro .it mentions a seafront bylaw...which was not there when i got there the night before.  They said.    they saw me being there at 7 am. It was delivered about 4 pm when i was cleaning my fishing rods. ok. i was not fishing at 7 am .but how do they know? Suddenly there was a sign posted........and gaffer taped to the life saving ring. I have the copy of the ticket i was warned with and the thing gafferer taped the life saving ring. how do i post it on here? or send it to you.?


----------



## John H

justdoitviv said:


> Sorry, not ignoring you, just not computer literate. pressed some buttons and your question came up.
> 
> I was told to move on officially... 24 hours notice , 12 people got the letter...i have a letter telling me so,  delivered to me by hand. Don't think there is a tro .it mentions a seafront bylaw...which was not there when i got there the night before.  They said.    they saw me being there at 7 am. It was delivered about 4 pm when i was cleaning my fishing rods. ok. i was not fishing at 7 am .but how do they know? Suddenly there was a sign posted........and gaffer taped to the life saving ring. I have the copy of the ticket i was warned with and the thing gafferer taped the life saving ring. how do i post it on here? or send it to you.?



Hi

It looks as if they are claiming there is a by-law but a couple of things come to mind: did they give you the details of the by-law so that you can contact the council and check it out? And if the signage was not there (or not adequate) when you arrived then they cannot prosecute successfully. If a by-law or a tro are not in force then they cannot order you to move on and any notice will be illegal; if there is a valid by-law or tro then they probably can - but only if the signage is legal and adequate. Good luck.


----------



## Deleted member 967

In reply to an FOI request to Borough of Swale District Council which covers Shellness.

Matt Cotton
Service Coordinator
Parking Services
Swale Borough Council, Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3HT
t 01622 602376 f 01622 690721 w Home



> No facilities are available for the parking of caravans / motorhomes / campervans *in any off-street car park or on-street parking bay *within the Borough of Swale; please refer to Car Parks



This is utter nonsense.  Motorhomes are motor vehicles if under 3050kg un-laden they are Motor Cars under the Road Traffic Acts of 1984/1988.   Above 3050kg unladed they are Heavy Motor Cars.

The Traffic Regulation Orders are here Traffic Regulation Orders
There are links to the on-street parking orders and off-street parking orders.


It would be interesting to see just what the notice  justdoitviv received says.

If you could take a picture of it and post it on here, using the insert image (fourth from the right hand side of the second bar of icons) when you go to post. Use post from Computer.   Also pictures of the notice.


----------



## philstoke

John Thompson said:


> Back on Topic again.
> 
> So we have a situation where a Motorhome is a vehicle defined under the 1984/88 Road Traffic Act as a "motor car" if it weighs under 3050kg unladen or a "heavy motor car" of over that weight.   However speed limits are defined for vehicle above or below 3500kg laden.  Confusing!  Speed limits relate to un-laden weight not laden.



on the gov.uk site they say speed limits are above or below 3.05 tonnes unladen and don't seem to mention laden weight, I'm confused now, are they both really the same thing, I always thought my Fiat Rapido could go up to the normal national speed limits, but I'm not sure now if I can only go up to 50 and 60mph on single and dual carriageways

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits


----------



## Spav

philstoke said:


> on the gov.uk site they say speed limits are above or below 3.05 tonnes unladen and don't seem to mention laden weight, I'm confused now, are they both really the same thing, I always thought my Fiat Rapido could go up to the normal national speed limits, but I'm not sure now if I can only go up to 50 and 60mph on single and dual carriageways
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits


If your vehicle is registered as a motor caravan then regards speed limits it is the tare weight,  aka completely empty weight of the vehicle that is the deciding factor,  but only if the maximum  permissible weight  is no more than 3,500 kg. This you will find on a small plate,  usually under the bonnet.


----------



## Caz

The VIN plate shows Maximum Gross Weight (i.e. laden weight), but the allowable speed limits depend on "maximum unladen weight". So no, the figures on the Vin plate will not determine what you are allowed to do with your vehicle.


----------



## Caz

Interesting question, to which I know not the answer I'm afraid. "Maximum unladen weight" seems to be a definition used only for the purposes of UK statutory speed limits!

It could be the same as MIRO (mass in running order - often used by caravan manufacturers) or kerbweight as used by car manufacturers but assessed differently by different manufacturers - some French ones (Renault rings a bell?) include the driver and passenger I think whereas others don't, so the whole thing is a minefield.

The Fiat handbook tells me my van's kerbweight is 1900Kgs - but the Swift handbook for the conversion doesn't tell me what it is at all - I assume it won't be the same as it doesn't have the steel bodyshell that Fiat intended, but of course it does have lots of additional equipment.

The VIN plate shows Maximum Gross Weight as 3,000 Kgs and the V5C concurs - referring to it as the Revenue Weight (Gross). 

I really don't know the answer - anyone else have any ideas?


----------



## trevskoda

well here is the plate on my iveco 59 c 12 which relates to 5.9 ton c twin rear wheels & 12 which is hp 120,but the replat by coach builder shows this picy. so what are my speed limits please


----------



## justdoitviv

*pictures request*



Tommybago said:


> I came across this thread and have read a lot of the pages ... not all ! I get the idea that this will not get sorted/ changed .. unless we try approaching to start with campsite owners maybe ! Asking / suggesting that if they feel they are losing out with motorhomes that if they say offer a refresh/top up services of maybe £5 ! Where we can drop toilets, and grey water and top up again.
> My hubby and me like to - sometimes visit a town / city do some shopping, a bite and a few drinks then head to our bed. we find a lot of campsites are usually out of town and not a handy walk back. So maybe this way they may feel they are getting some business from us. Im not saying we don't go onto campsites but most of the time we like to free wheel.
> Its a pity they don't realise that caravans mostly have to go to them but motorhomes don't always have to.
> 
> Also ... these signs that are legal and not is there any chance that a pic could be put on so that we might know what to look for !!
> 
> Now I guess this the start the thread up again !


 yes I have several pictures..........how do I upload them? Can someone e mail me privately so not to disturb others, and I will post the signs and fines........all illegal. Otherwise if you give me your email address I can sent them to you for you to put on the site. Or else look at andy ********** over night parking ...go to kent...... all those signs are illegal, and some have been removed. The new signs and tickets I got are not on andys site.


----------



## justdoitviv

John H said:


> I tend to agree with you that it is disreputable - and when I was a council leader I refused to sanction any such signs. My point, however, is that it is simply wrong to say they are illegal. You never win an argument by getting your facts wrong.
> 
> Further, since we all know those signs are unenforceable, do we really want to push councils into a corner where they use TROs as a first resort rather than a last one? I cannot see that would be of any benefit to us at all. This is not about letting councils get away with something; it is about doing what is likely to benefit us.


 Most people don't KNOW that the signs are  not enforceable. I certainly have never known. 

In one way I agree with the statement you made....it is about doing what is likely to benefit us all. On the other hand I don't. I come from a poor area, with a layby which is popular with overseas, and tourists from other areas in the uk. Just a few motorhomes......But we need the tourism, like every other area.

If I am in the layby, motorhomers always stop to ask if its ok to stop the night or two. If I was not in the layby to tell them yes its ok, they would move on now that the no overnight camping signs were erected. (these have now been removed in 1 layby ). 

I think you will find most people do not know an enforceable sign or not.


----------



## justdoitviv

*basis*



John H said:


> Were you told to move on by an official (as opposed to an angry member of the public or self-appointed guardian) and is there a TRO/by-law in force at this spot? If the answer to the former is yes and to the latter is no then it would be the first example I have heard of and I would be very interested to hear on what basis they thought you should move.



well I got the letter, and pictures but don't know how to put them on here


----------



## justdoitviv

*pictures*

think my daughter managed to do it.
This is for norman bay


----------



## John H

justdoitviv said:


> Most people don't KNOW that the signs are  not enforceable. I certainly have never known.
> 
> In one way I agree with the statement you made....it is about doing what is likely to benefit us all. On the other hand I don't. I come from a poor area, with a layby which is popular with overseas, and tourists from other areas in the uk. Just a few motorhomes......But we need the tourism, like every other area.
> 
> If I am in the layby, motorhomers always stop to ask if its ok to stop the night or two. If I was not in the layby to tell them yes its ok, they would move on now that the no overnight camping signs were erected. (these have now been removed in 1 layby ).
> 
> I think you will find most people do not know an enforceable sign or not.



This is a difficult one. You could say that people should know the Highway Code and thus what signs are official and enforceable but I agree that, although we should all know, many of us don't. On the other hand, those of us who acquaint ourselves with which are which will have more spots to stop at than those who don't. The unenforceable signs are there as a deterrent and if some people follow them and don't stop they have worked. Thus there is less pressure on the council to impose enforceable signs. If we all ignore them then that pressure returns. It is a selfish argument but I suppose that it applies to many situations - those who take the trouble to find out get the greatest choice. But if we all found out then councils might be forced down the official route and there will thus be fewer spots for all. 

Ideally, we need to approach councils with positive proposals. A few can see the advantages of allowing us to stop but they are few at the moment. We may get a few more to see it our way by stressing the win-win situation but I can't see us doing it by aggressive tactics - not that I'm suggesting your tactics are aggressive. If the by-law that the issuing authority is working under proves to be not properly established then you have every right to question it.


----------



## John H

justdoitviv said:


> think my daughter managed to do it.
> This is for norman bay



On the face of it that looks fairly comprehensive. There does appear to be a by-law, the signs are clear, a warning notice was first issued and then a notice of intent to take legal proceedings was issued. To make any further comment, you would need to read the full by-law and look into the procedure by which it was established. Thus, it may be possible to find a technical loophole but I wouldn't bank on it. You could, for example, argue that you were not camped but parked and see what happens but English law is based on the principle of what a reasonable person might be expected to conclude in those circumstances and it might well be decided that a reasonable person would conclude that anyone in a motorhome at 3am is likely to be in bed! Sorry not to be more helpful but please keep us posted. I may not be able to respond quickly in future because we are just about to go on our travels and don't know when we will have reception but I would be very interested in how this pans out.

Ps I think I must be losing it - just noticed that the notice is an A4 sheet taped to a post! That is hardly properly displayed and I believe you said earlier that it wasn't there when you parked up. This is your strongest defence. If you challenge it then do so on that basis. I know it is tempting to fire off in all directions but it is always best to choose one or two strong points and stick to them. If the notice wasn't there when you parked then how would you be expected to know there was a by-law? The tape suggests it was put up in a hurry - and that tape looks fairly new to me in the picture. Put doubt into the minds of the court and you may have a good chance of beating it.


----------



## Tow Itch

With respect to what unladen weight is. I did small piece on towing for the site I moderate on. This is part, a glossary on mass related terms at one point Yougov confused unladen and kerb weight. It then corrected it only for the newer Gov.UK to make the same mistake again.



> Glossary of Mass (weight) Related Terms Any hope of a sensible law on towing is lost when those framing it mix up the terms weight and mass but here is a glossary of terms from the NTTA (National Trailer And Towing Association) Any Italics mine.
> 
> Unladen Weight (UW)
> The weight of the trailer (or towing vehicle) less removable optional equipment and load but what is quoted may or may not include aircon, other options and tow bar. If it suits your purpose weigh your car empty and deduct the fuel load
> Gross Weight
> The total weight of the trailer (or towing vehicle) and load Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) or Gross Weight Mass (GWM) The total weight of the towing vehicle and its load Never heard of GWM but is also the same as Maximum Authorised Mass (MAM)
> Maximum Gross Weight (MGW)
> The maximum figure set by the manufacturer for the gross weight. This will normally be the technically permissible maximum based on the carrying capacity of the tyres, axles, coupling, suspension and chassis but may have been adjusted downwards for commercial reasons
> Technically Permissible Maximum Weight MTPM is usually applied to to caravans where the notional maximum for the chassis is varied on different models.
> The technically permissible maximum based on the capacity of the tyres, axles, coupling, suspension and chassis
> Maximum Authorised Mass (MAM)
> As maximum gross weight above. The latest EC term as used in the Driver Licensing Regulations
> Gross Train Weight (GTW )
> The maximum allowable combined weight (combined MAM) of the towing vehicle and trailer as set by the towing vehicle manufacturer
> Payload:
> The difference between the gross weight of the trailer and its unladen weight, i.e. The load carrying capacity
> Kerb Weight/Kerbside Weight
> The weight of the towing vehicle (without payload), including all fluids required for operation (95/48/EEC: Vehicle, 90% full tank, 68kg driver and 7kg luggage.) not always been defined and you may find your handbook lists a figure derived differently see also unladen weight wrt accessories



Unladen weights need checking if not using a base vehicle if having one value printed and a different actual use whichever suits. What is the legal definition of kerbweight???????


----------



## zantiagreen

*legal definition of seashore*

I note the bye-law states you're not allowed to camp on the seashore.



Something was ringing bells in my head about this definition so i looked it up and  sure enough the legal definition of seashore is :idea-007::

The seashore (which is synonymous with foreshore) is the area between the mean high water mark and the mean low water mark.

Therefore if you are parked on the road or any land above the high water mark then you are not breaking the bye-law - although I am sure that this is not what the writers of the bye-law has intended. They probably meant to say seafront!
Now I for one, wouldn't dream of camping on the seashore for fear of getting stuck as the tide came in. Leave me the road and that'll do me


----------



## Spav

They would have to take you to a weighbridge,  unload you then weigh you. 
Manufacturers do not know what bodywork will be built on to the bare chassis so are unable to put the tare weight on the plate.


----------



## Deleted member 967

My 1992 Hymer S700 came with paperwork showing the un-laden weight of the vehicle as it left the factory with factory fitted accessories listed as being included.   Anything else added would need to be added to this to obtain the un-laden weight at any particular time.  The makers stated the max un-laden weight would be 3600kg  I weighed mine after I bought it and it weighed in at 3380kg with all of my accessories added.  The MPGVW is 4600kg or 5900kg max train weight.


----------



## Spav

John Thompson said:


> My 1992 Hymer S700 came with paperwork showing the un-laden weight of the vehicle as it left the factory with factory fitted accessories listed as being included.   Anything else added would need to be added to this to obtain the un-laden weight at any particular time.  The makers stated the max un-laden weight would be 3600kg  I weighed mine after I bought it and it weighed in at 3380kg with all of my accessories added.  The MPGVW is 4600kg or 5900kg max train weight.



There is no max unladen weight,  given that it is not above the max laden weight, the unladen weight is what it is. The only max is the legal max gross weight and or train weight. 
My van's brochure states the ex factory tare weight, 2,800 kg if I remember  correctly,  and that will do the police unless they are willing to unload everything including the toilet waste themselves to weigh it.


----------



## Squeegee

Don't you take spanners with you when you are out and about?

Squeegee


----------



## Deleted member 967

Spav said:


> There is no max unladen weight,  given that it is not above the max laden weight, the unladen weight is what it is. The only max is the legal max gross weight and or train weight.
> My van's brochure states the ex factory tare weight, 2,800 kg if I remember  correctly,  and that will do the police unless they are willing to unload everything including the toilet waste themselves to weigh it.



I agre with your comment but I can only go by the statement in the Hymer specifications which states "Maximum un-laden weight"

Back to the OP

In Entrick v Carrington(1765) Lord Camden ruled, as later became viewed as a general principle, that:
 1.) The state may do nothing but that which is expressly authorised by law,
 2.) while the individual may do anything but that which is forbidden by law.
 The judgment established the limits of executive power in English law: the state can only act lawfully in a manner prescribed by statute or common law. 

So any government body and that includes local authorities, no matter how well intentioned, can only do what is expressly authorised by law.

Only signs that are *prescribed* in the TSGDR or have received specific *approval* from the Secretary of state can be displayed on the public highway.  The signs have to be clearly displayed, so dirty or damaged signs do not satisfy the regulations.  Without the signs no regulation can be applied.

I listed the signs that have been prescribed or approved in a previous post.  

The individual may do anything but that which is forbidden by law.  If there is no law banning overnight parking then you can stay there.   That said who would want to stay where they were not welcome.


----------



## Deleted member 967

Hi David

Its all a hang over from the Road Traffic Act 1984/1988/1992 where all weights were given in hundredweights (cwt) unladen.   That goes back to vehicles (vans) being classified as 30cwt, 10cwt etc. 

Most TRO still refer to these Acts and give car park weight limits as cwt sometimes with a metric equivalent.  ie. 30cwt  1540kg.  

A lot of car parks are limited to 1540kg  some at 2000kg and some at 3050kg.   No a lot of vehicles should be getting tickets for being overweight but it is only campoervans that seem to be being picked out with these weight limits.  A Land Rover Discovery is over 2750kg.


----------



## Spav

John Thompson said:


> I agre with your comment but I can only go by the statement in the Hymer specifications which states "Maximum un-laden weight"
> 
> Back to the OP
> 
> In Entrick v Carrington(1765) Lord Camden ruled, as later became viewed as a general principle, that:
> 1.) The state may do nothing but that which is expressly authorised by law,
> 2.) while the individual may do anything but that which is forbidden by law.
> The judgment established the limits of executive power in English law: the state can only act lawfully in a manner prescribed by statute or common law.
> 
> So any government body and that includes local authorities, no matter how well intentioned, can only do what is expressly authorised by law.
> 
> Only signs that are *prescribed* in the TSGDR or have received specific *approval* from the Secretary of state can be displayed on the public highway.  The signs have to be clearly displayed, so dirty or damaged signs do not satisfy the regulations.  Without the signs no regulation can be applied.
> 
> I listed the signs that have been prescribed or approved in a previous post.
> 
> The individual may do anything but that which is forbidden by law.  If there is no law banning overnight parking then you can stay there.   That said who would want to stay where they were not welcome.


Perhaps the weight plate goes on regardless of the different layous on offer with each model? 
One weight fits all type of thing,  not very Germanic really. 
My one gives the tire weight for each layout,  but the chances are any trouble will be for alleged speeding through a camera and then it would be on them to find out the tire weight. 
Myself,  I would just go to court and claim expenses off them and have a nice wee jolly at their expense.


----------



## John H

zantiagreen said:


> I note the bye-law states you're not allowed to camp on the seashore.
> 
> 
> 
> Something was ringing bells in my head about this definition so i looked it up and  sure enough the legal definition of seashore is :idea-007::
> 
> The seashore (which is synonymous with foreshore) is the area between the mean high water mark and the mean low water mark.
> 
> Therefore if you are parked on the road or any land above the high water mark then you are not breaking the bye-law - although I am sure that this is not what the writers of the bye-law has intended. They probably meant to say seafront!
> Now I for one, wouldn't dream of camping on the seashore for fear of getting stuck as the tide came in. Leave me the road and that'll do me



I think you'll find that there is no rigid legal definition of "seashore" and it will depend on how the by-law is drafted.


----------

