# is this legal



## Wanderlust (Nov 30, 2015)

We are near new Milton and this sign has appeared in one of our wild camping spots.   LR Downton (b3058) Hampshire, but it doesn't say who installed the sign or if there is a penalty ?


----------



## campervanannie (Nov 30, 2015)

I ignore those signs just frighteners as far as I am concerned.


----------



## n brown (Nov 30, 2015)

it's a frightener, no back up legally


----------



## davedale (Nov 30, 2015)

*No overnight paking sign.*

I have had a look on streetmap & there appears to be a Holiday park close by. I suspect that the sign has some connection to the owners of site.


----------



## Obanboy666 (Nov 30, 2015)

Agree it's not legal but personnelly I have not overnighted in any spot with same / similiar  signage as its obvious you are not wellcome. I just move on to another spot.
So pleased I spend most of my time wilding in Scotland where there are very few restrictions and poi's in abundance.


----------



## John H (Nov 30, 2015)

As a general rule you can be pretty sure that any sign which simply says "no overnight parking" or "no sleeping" or "no overnight camping" has no backing in law - for the simple reason that there is no legal definition of "overnight". A legal sign will refer to specific times and specific categories of vehicle - as well as having reference to the TRO or by-law that supports it. 

However, as Obanboy says, I have no wish to park where there may be angry locals who might cause damage to my motorhome.


----------



## maureenandtom (Nov 30, 2015)

As always, I fully, completely agree with the above.

As a general rule, you must always give in to those who you think might bully you.  Far better that you knuckle under than stand up for yourself.   If the council say they don't want you to overnight there then you must do as they say.  They have your best interests at heart and the fact that they don't have any legal backing for such signs is irrelevant.  The fact that they will not have subjected their signs to a public consultation is also irrelevant.  The possibility that the signs have been erected at the request of a councillor who may own a campsite is also irrelevant.  You have elected coucillors to look after your interests.

The council knows best.   Don't make any of them angry.   Who knows what they will do to you if you dare to disobey them?

Of course, on the other hand, if you do stand up to them you might get a letter like this:






But hey, who needs a letter like that.  Maybe somebody else will stand up for you.  Frogs and buckets.


----------



## runnach (Nov 30, 2015)

The irony is the very same signs in the highlands were deemed illegal and the authorities supposedly took them down ..I too take no notice. pretty much for the reasons John H points out 

Channa


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 30, 2015)

Never cow down ,it starts with a few words and before long


----------



## derathe (Nov 30, 2015)

Like most I suspect, I have come across sign stating no camping, overnight parking or the like that appear to have no legal authority and rarely stop , not wanting to deal with any disgruntled locals. I do though wonder if `we` should question these with the local authority. I believe i read a thread where someone had written to the relevant borough requesting details of the signage and the bylaw etc pertaining to such, the sign were eventually removed. Was I dreaming this or can someone point me in the direction of the thread. Maybe a well drafted letter template could be placed on the site for members to use to request such legality of these signs? just a thought.


----------



## runnach (Nov 30, 2015)

derathe said:


> Like most I suspect, I have come across sign stating no camping, overnight parking or the like that appear to have no legal authority and rarely stop , not wanting to deal with any disgruntled locals. I do though wonder if `we` should question these with the local authority. I believe i read a thread where someone had written to the relevant borough requesting details of the signage and the bylaw etc pertaining to such, the sign were eventually removed. Was I dreaming this or can someone point me in the direction of the thread. Maybe a well drafted letter template could be placed on the site for members to use to request such legality of these signs? just a thought.



Why Derathe ? I know they are illegal you do and anyone with half a brain can soon discover the facts..So carry on why stick heads above parapets when their is no need. Remember one significant outcome is the councils can respond by introducing proper tro's 

Channa


----------



## derathe (Nov 30, 2015)

channa said:


> Why Derathe ? I know they are illegal you do and anyone with half a brain can soon discover the facts..So carry on why stick heads above parapets when their is no need. Remember one significant outcome is the councils can respond by introducing proper tro's
> 
> Channa




Why? because we all like to wild camp , so surely it makes some sense to defend that option, rather than allow anyone who takes umbridge to a van parked overnight in `there` spot


----------



## John H (Nov 30, 2015)

maureenandtom said:


> As always, I fully, completely agree with the above.
> 
> As a general rule, you must always give in to those who you think might bully you.  Far better that you knuckle under than stand up for yourself.   If the council say they don't want you to overnight there then you must do as they say.  They have your best interests at heart and the fact that they don't have any legal backing for such signs is irrelevant.  The fact that they will not have subjected their signs to a public consultation is also irrelevant.  The possibility that the signs have been erected at the request of a councillor who may own a campsite is also irrelevant.  You have elected coucillors to look after your interests.
> 
> ...



The same usual old rubbish, I see. If I choose not to park somewhere it is certainly not going to benefit the local campsite owner! Also, I have simply stated my view; I have no problem with others who choose to stay where a local councillor (or anybody else) might not want them to - that is entirely up to them. Also, I support all those who question any rules and have done my bit to encourage local authorities to re-examine their attitudes. But I ain't gonna put my motorhome at risk if I judge that there might be a risk. You may have less consideration for your vehicle - that is up to you.


----------



## Twaite (Nov 30, 2015)

Wanderlust said:


> We are near new Milton and this sign has appeared in one of our wild camping spots.   LR Downton (b3058) Hampshire, but it doesn't say who installed the sign or if there is a penalty ?



I'll have. To come there and reverse over it Woops!! 
That step of mine is metal and mighty hard to judge


----------



## maureenandtom (Nov 30, 2015)

derathe said:


> Like most I suspect, I have come across sign stating no camping, overnight parking or the like that appear to have no legal authority and rarely stop , not wanting to deal with any disgruntled locals. I do though wonder if `we` should question these with the local authority. I believe i read a thread where someone had written to the relevant borough requesting details of the signage and the bylaw etc pertaining to such, the sign were eventually removed. Was I dreaming this or can someone point me in the direction of the thread. Maybe a well drafted letter template could be placed on the site for members to use to request such legality of these signs? just a thought.



Signs without legal backing have been removed by several councils.   I've been involved in only one of them but there have been a few.  Active campaigners have stopped bye-laws being enacted - I've been involved in three of those but I know there have been more.   Active campaigners have blocked TRO amendments and have forced changes to TROs.

You shouldn't call the signs unlawful because that disturbs some.   The councils call them "signs erected outisde a legal framework" - I'll carry on calling them unlawful.  I can't see the difference.

Search "Scarborough" in this website and you'll find a wealth of discussion.


----------



## maureenandtom (Nov 30, 2015)

John H said:


> The same usual old rubbish, I see. If I choose not to park somewhere it is certainly not going to benefit the local campsite owner! Also, I have simply stated my view; I have no problem with others who choose to stay where a local councillor (or anybody else) might not want them to - that is entirely up to them. Also, I support all those who question any rules and have done my bit to encourage local authorities to re-examine their attitudes. But I ain't gonna put my motorhome at risk if I judge that there might be a risk. You may have less consideration for your vehicle - that is up to you.



Not the same old rubbish.  Totally new rubbish;  I'm agreeing with you - do what the council tells you.


----------



## John H (Nov 30, 2015)

maureenandtom said:


> Not the same old rubbish.  Totally new rubbish;  I'm agreeing with you - do what the council tells you.



If you are agreeing with me then I suggest you re-read what I said - it wasn't that!


----------



## runnach (Nov 30, 2015)

derathe said:


> Why? because we all like to wild camp , so surely it makes some sense to defend that option, rather than allow anyone who takes umbridge to a van parked overnight in `there` spot



And the defence John is straightforward. Why rock the boat ? some people will move on through lack of knowledge or spine..so would a council in the main not think this is working ? AND avoid the cost of TRO's.?

Sometimes the best way of tackling your foes is keeping your mouth shut.

as for angry residents, I have experienced it once and that ended up a story too it suffice to say bloke was ok in the end ...problem was down to a wilder acting irresponsibly with black and refuse 

Channa


----------



## donkey too (Nov 30, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> Never cow down ,it starts with a few words and before long



I do not think that this picture of our self elected prime minister Mr Cameron is appropriate on this site.


----------



## yorkslass (Nov 30, 2015)

derathe said:


> Like most I suspect, I have come across sign stating no camping, overnight parking or the like that appear to have no legal authority and rarely stop , not wanting to deal with any disgruntled locals. I do though wonder if `we` should question these with the local authority. I believe i read a thread where someone had written to the relevant borough requesting details of the signage and the bylaw etc pertaining to such, the sign were eventually removed. Was I dreaming this or can someone point me in the direction of the thread. Maybe a well drafted letter template could be placed on the site for members to use to request such legality of these signs? just a thought.



In my opinion, why pull the tigers tail? If you don't annoy it, it may leave you alone.


----------



## maureenandtom (Nov 30, 2015)

yorkslass said:


> In my opinion, why pull the tigers tail? If you don't annoy it, it may leave you alone.



Of course.

Or he may put off eating you until last.

As Winston Churchill is alleged to have said:

_An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Winston Churchill_

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill at BrainyQuote


----------



## maureenandtom (Nov 30, 2015)

"_But I ain't gonna put my motorhome at risk if I judge that there might be a risk. _"

The reasoning behind that statement must be that you feel the presence of that sign, if disobeyed, might lead to some sort of vigilante violence by aggrieved law-abiders who think the sign has legal merit.  I think, probably, that is a view shared by many and you aren't alone with that opinion.

If the presence of a sign “outside a legal framework” does incite violence then that is an argument I had not thought of for disputing such signs.  If they are an incitement to violence then they must be removed.  No question about it.


----------



## spigot (Nov 30, 2015)

Quite a few car parks on the east coast allow one to park overnight but state 'No Sleeping' or 'No Cooking'

But then I'm an insomniac who eats salads.


----------



## John H (Dec 1, 2015)

maureenandtom said:


> "_But I ain't gonna put my motorhome at risk if I judge that there might be a risk. _"
> 
> The reasoning behind that statement must be that you feel the presence of that sign, if disobeyed, might lead to some sort of vigilante violence by aggrieved law-abiders who think the sign has legal merit.  I think, probably, that is a view shared by many and you aren't alone with that opinion.
> 
> If the presence of a sign “outside a legal framework” does incite violence then that is an argument I had not thought of for disputing such signs.  If they are an incitement to violence then they must be removed.  No question about it.



Seems good on the face of it but a moment's thought will tell you that the sign itself is not the problem; it is the thought that it represents. And, as has been stated many times on other threads about other subjects, you don't take away the thought if you take away the outward signs of it.

Further, I never said that the signs are all indicative of potential violence. You have to judge each situation on its merit. In some areas, I might conclude that it is best to move on; in others, I might conclude that it is best not to make the council think of turning the signs into legal ones; and in others I might conclude that contacting the council would be the best approach. But in all cases, the softly-softly approach is always better than the kind of direct action that puts people's backs up. I note that a certain strangeperson whose tactics you favour has claimed success in a certain campaign when an examination of the paperwork shows that the most influential aspect was almost certainly the willingness of the local residents to support the removal of the signs. You don't get anywhere by beating your head against a wall; you need to convince people, not  bully them.


----------



## rockape (Dec 1, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> Never cow down ,it starts with a few words and before long


Is Dolfy pointing to a wilding spot????


----------



## maureenandtom (Dec 1, 2015)

Wanderlust said:


> We are near new Milton and this sign has appeared in one of our wild camping spots.   LR Downton (b3058) Hampshire, but it doesn't say who installed the sign or if there is a penalty ?







derathe said:


> Like most I suspect, I have come across sign stating no camping, overnight parking or the like that appear to have no legal authority and rarely stop , not wanting to deal with any disgruntled locals. I do though wonder if `we` should question these with the local authority. I believe i read a thread where someone had written to the relevant borough requesting details of the signage and the bylaw etc pertaining to such, the sign were eventually removed. Was I dreaming this or can someone point me in the direction of the thread. *Maybe a* well *drafted letter template could be placed on the site for members to use to request such legality of these signs?* just a thought.



*Deerathe* and *Wanderlust*,


It will do no harm to ask the council, in a friendly enough way, if their signs have legal backing.  (I am choosing my words carefully not to alarm those who do not like questioning councils).   You could use a letter like this.   It will not give offence and will let you know what your next step, if you decide to take one, should be:

_Dear Council,

My name is ............... and my email address is .................

I have seen these roadsigns photograph attached [or better, embedded in the email] and I've been told that it is possible that these signs have been erected outside a legal framework and that you are unable to enforce them.  Is this correct?

Yours

......................_

Depending on their answer you can decide what to do next.   If they say the signs are legal and they will enforce them, you can ask how?    It's likely they will say they are advisory and they have no intention of enforcing them.    You can then ask for their authority to erect the signs or you can leave it alone.

Only you can decide how strongly you feel that councils should not exceed the authority they have been given.

Tom


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Dec 1, 2015)

spigot said:


> Quite a few car parks on the east coast allow one to park overnight but state 'No Sleeping' or 'No Cooking'
> 
> But then I'm an insomniac who eats salads.



Most car parks are covered by a TRO.   "No Sleeping" "No Cooking" are often written into the TRO clauses.   I have contacted 400+ parking providers (Local Authorities, NPAs and MSAs) so know this for a fact.   However as has been stated, "overnight" is not a clear definition and actual times must be stated.   If a car park is open 24hrs then parking is also.   Some TROs also have time constrains in them.

Some car parks have rules that parked vehicle must be vacated immediately and not occupied until it is about to be moved.   The only way to know some of these clauses is to read the TROs,  Most TROs are published online but it is not a simple job to find them.  A copy must be provided if you ask for it.

East Lothian (North Berwick) openly admitted that the signs they had erected banning motorhomes parking had no legal backing.   They did this when the Scottish Government refused to allow them a Bylaw banning Motorhomes.   They still hold the option to implement a TRO but hope that enough will be put off by the signs, to avoid them the expense.

The owner of any car park is entitled to impose restrictions on its use.   I contacted Durham CC regarding overnight parking on their P&R sites which have dedicated Motorhome bays.   It turned out that in order to get one site, the previous owners (A well known firm of Solicitors) had insisted that in the planning permission. there would be no overnight parking of any vehicles, or they would refuse to sell the site.   So it is not always the authority that are the ones not wanting to allow us to park.

Andy S's campaign was against highway "No Overnight Parking" signs in laybys, not car parks.  It is permitted to rest and sleep in laybys, provided you are not causing an obstruction to other traffic, but not set up an encampment.  However any parking on the highway (That includes laybys and verges as well as the road itself.) can be considered as an obstruction.    See Highway Code: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code    Fitness to drive (rules 90 to 94), Waiting and parking (238 to 252).


----------



## trevskoda (Dec 1, 2015)

rockape said:


> Is Dolfy pointing to a wilding spot????



Yes and he parked all over europe/africa for years without consent,not to many councils moved him on.:rulez:


----------



## maureenandtom (Dec 1, 2015)

Through one of those happy coincidences that sometimes occur, I came back from walking a neighbours's dog a few minutes ago to find an email notification about a parking matter and unlawful signs.  That is, when councils attempt to enforce unlawful signage.   Councils are bound by rules - as we are not - and councils ignore the rules only because we let them.

(We may do whatever is not forbidden us;  the council may do only that which is permitted it.  See the difference?)

It's nothing to do with motorhomes but to do with parking enforcement so we should be interested.  Funnily enough, it's about Scarborough. 

It is here North Yorks Enquirer SBC Parking Refunds Ahoy! North Yorks Enquirer


----------



## maingate (Dec 1, 2015)

There is nothing like a good, honest Councillor.

And one of Scarboroughs finest is nothing like a good, honest Councillor ..... allegedly. :scared:

I clicked this link on your link. :lol-061:

North Yorks Enquirer Dear John, about Cllr. Jane Kenyon . . . North Yorks Enquirer

You could not make it up.


----------



## iampatman (Dec 1, 2015)

maingate said:


> There is nothing like a good, honest Councillor.
> 
> And one of Scarboroughs finest is nothing like a good, honest Councillor ..... allegedly. :scared:
> 
> ...



It never ceases to amaze me how folk like her get to hold such responsible positions within police authorities and local authorities. What is even more surprising is how they hold on to those positions despite being exposed as _snip............snip_ - Allegedly, of course 

Pat


----------



## paintman (Dec 1, 2015)

Wanderlust said:


> We are near new Milton and this sign has appeared in one of our wild camping spots.   LR Downton (b3058) Hampshire, but it doesn't say who installed the sign or if there is a penalty ?



I'm wondering why councils would go to the expense of erecting these signs (legal or otherwise) in a time when most authorities are under pressure to restrict spending not increase it ? Might it be that previous over nighters have caused local residents to complain about some aspect of their behaviour ?


----------



## maureenandtom (Dec 1, 2015)

paintman said:


> I'm wondering why councils would go to the expense of erecting these signs (legal or otherwise) in a time when most authorities are under pressure to restrict spending not increase it ? Might it be that previous over nighters have caused local residents to complain about some aspect of their behaviour ?



Yes, of course it is a possibility.

It is more than a possibility if you ask the council.   They always say this.  This is why, invariably, the councils say they wish to ban motorhomes.

If you ask for proof of this by asking for details of complaints and use the Freedom of Information Act - which presumably ensures the council will always respond truthfully - then experience showns that there are never complaints in any numbers.

In Lincolnshire, not using the FoI,  the council initially said that there had been hundreds of complaints about motorhomes at Huttoft Car Terrace.   Under the FoI, there had been 24 complaints for all the coastal car parks (not just Huttoft) and only half a dozen or less had been about motorhomes.







In North Yorks the council initially said that there had been numerous complaints from Civil Enforcement Officers (Parking Wardens to us).   Under the FoI there had been none. None!

In Cornwall ... well, the experience goes on in like manner.

If you have problems with signs, lawful or not, then ask your own council.  First as an ordinary question and then again under the Fo


----------



## maureenandtom (Dec 1, 2015)

paintman said:


> I'm wondering why councils would go to the expense of erecting these signs (legal or otherwise) in a time when most authorities are under pressure to restrict spending not increase it ? Might it be that previous over nighters have caused local residents to complain about some aspect of their behaviour ?



This is why the original prohibiting order was instituted.






A little investigation to find out if a prohibition could be justified finds this:












So the council seems to justify curtailing the freedoms of motorhomers by banning overnight parking in response to one complaint.   (I apologise for saying there had been no complaints in my post above.)

It is reasonable then, if you believe that one complaint should not result in  a parking ban, to investigate just where the need for a prohibition order came from.   

The FoI produced this email.






It seems to me that the alleged complaints from CEOs was a smokescreen.  The original request came from somebody called Andrew.

There is an Andrew in the address list in the email.  This is Andrew Backhouse, prominent local politician, who also happens to own a campsite.


----------



## paintman (Dec 2, 2015)

Sadly that's what councils do, I recall in my home town, not long ago a forthcoming visit by a circus was advertised in the normal way, by posters. These posters had a image of a clown, one complaint from someone who apparently has a terrible fear of clowns and had to walk past a poster taking children to school, alternative routes were an option but the complainant was not prepared to alter the route. In a matter of a few days the circus was asked to remove all the posters before they had even arrived in town! I'm guessing they did not have a prosperous visit.


----------



## maureenandtom (Dec 12, 2015)

Maybe this will make the council think twice about making sure its signs are correct and legal.

Council faces huge refund bill for ?illegal fines? - The Scarborough News


----------



## yorkslass (Dec 12, 2015)

maingate said:


> There is nothing like a good, honest Councillor.
> 
> And one of Scarboroughs finest is nothing like a good, honest Councillor ..... allegedly. :scared:
> 
> ...



There's absolutely lots about her in' the real whitby' publication. You very nearly need a law degree to try and unravel all the pies she allegedly has her finger in.


----------



## ricc (Dec 12, 2015)

several posters have said theyre frightened to park near a sign in case angry locals damage their vehicle ,
 i take the view that a  carpark with a well made sign has been put there by a council or somebody like the national trust ,,,ie by a jobsworth sat in an office  , risk of  any  actual on site confrontation is minimal  and if it occurs will be some sort of employee , warden or whatever whose just going through the motions of doing his job, they know they can lie and try to frighten but they wont go further, 
the national trust for example puts signs on its rural carparks, but its not cost effective to send people round out of office hours to hassle folk and certainly not cost effective  to try to enforce overnight bans


a layby or pullin with a crudelly done sign,  paint daubed on a bit of wood, will be a totally different kettle of fish ,  done by a local private citizen ,could be someone irrational  liable to stop by with a mate on the way home from the pub. maybe the adjacent landowner who has had problems with "travelers" in the past , somebody acting through emotion and personal involvement  rather than just doing their job, far more likely to act foolishly ,    probably wise to find another spot


----------



## Sandie (Dec 12, 2015)

Of course, if you are part of a "travelling community", it seems that you can park as many vehicles as you like, and set out generators, awnings, gas bottles etc., and whilst you will get a notice to move, you'll not get any kind of fine.  In November, Matlock Bath main car park near Gulliver's Kingdom is the first stop for a certain group, then when finally moved on, they go to the other end of the village to the station car park. Must be at least a dozen caravans there at the moment, plus associated trucks, vans, dogs etc. Not a parking ticket in sight. The car parks are large, and not full at this time of year, so it doesn't cause any congestion problems, but why are they not at least required to pay the parking charge, the same as anyone else?  There are height barriers on the other large visitors' car park, presumably to stop travellers using this too,  but it also means that I can't visit my boyfriend in my camper, and he has trouble getting tradesmen to do work as they have nowhere to park their vans. There's no on-street parking anywhere nearby. I don't know what the answer is, but there's something wrong somewhere.


----------



## Johnnygm7lsi (Dec 13, 2015)

I go fishing at our local river and take the MH so I have loo, coffee facilities ect, and it leaves my wife with the car, I park near the dam in an area they call The lossie Green, it`s common ground used for free parking and occasionally by the circus and travelling fairs. On one occasion when I was there I popped back to the van for a brew, I was approached by a council guy in a council van, usual guy in council overalls hiviz that look after the area and cut the grass ect. He said hello and and the usual weather conversation, then he surprised me when he said,,,, how long are you staying,,,, I said,,,, I dunno, why,,,, he said,,,, well we have to supply portaloos and wheelie bins , I laughed and said, I have a toilet in my MH and anyway I just live a mile up the road,,,, he then said,,,,,,Ohhhh I`m very sorry, I thought you were the travelling people, by now I was well peed off and explained I was only here fishing for the afternoon, lived locally, and was certainly not a traveller, he apologised profusely and went on his not very merry way. What really tees me off is, when I was fishing there before, a Bailiff asked to see my permit, I showed him my permit, then I asked if he had checked to see if the travellers who had set up an encampment had permits as they were fishing just up from me,, he said,, Oh no, they are a law un to themselves, you cant ask them for a permit,


----------



## ricc (Dec 13, 2015)

laws only work on people who are leery of the consequences of contraveening them

if enforcement doesnt happen or the fine isnt a deterent the law is useless


----------



## alcam (Dec 13, 2015)

derathe said:


> Why? because we all like to wild camp , so surely it makes some sense to defend that option, rather than allow anyone who takes umbridge to a van parked overnight in `there` spot



I think channa was suggesting we just park up and ignore the signs ?
 I'm pretty certain that in a certain town in N. Yorks there are signs put up in one of the car parks to keep the locals happy but in the full knowledge that motorhomes will park there anyway . I have no inclination to stir up a hornets nest on a point of principle when the council have made a pragmatic decision which works for us


----------



## derathe (Dec 13, 2015)

alcam said:


> I think channa was suggesting we just park up and ignore the signs ?
> I'm pretty certain that in a certain town in N. Yorks there are signs put up in one of the car parks to keep the locals happy but in the full knowledge that motorhomes will park there anyway . I have no inclination to stir up a hornets nest on a point of principle when the council have made a pragmatic decision which works for us



That is of course all well and good if your in the know, but how many would park in a ` no parking ` area on the off chance its ok?  Do many any of you do this? and have there been repercussions?


----------



## alcam (Dec 13, 2015)

derathe said:


> That is of course all well and good if your in the know, but how many would park in a ` no parking ` area on the off chance its ok?  Do many any of you do this? and have there been repercussions?



Take it you are referring to 'no overnight stay' as opposed to 'no parking' ? 
Not really 'in the know' as such . The basic rules on signs given by members on here can be your bible . Also if you are not sure about a specific place check on here . If sign is not legal I don't believe police would ever bother [even if sign was legal] . The only repercussion possible would be a ticket [unlikely event] which would be cancelled on appeal immediately


----------



## antiquesam (Dec 13, 2015)

I quite often park where there are "no overnight parking or sleeping" signs, unless they are in Council car parks. The worst that can happen is someone telling me to move on, but the only time I have had a visit was from the police when I parked off road in what was obviously private land, but they said they had no problem with us being there for the night as we would deter the travellers in the area at the time. This reassured me no end.


----------



## maureenandtom (Dec 13, 2015)

derathe said:


> *That is of course all well and good if your in the know*, but how many would park in a ` no parking ` area on the off chance its ok?  Do many any of you do this? and have there been repercussions?



You've put your finger on the problem.   One of the reasons why some of us (not me) want to allow the councils to erect unlawful signs (sorry, signs outside a legal framework) is that we know they have no validity.  It's my view that we should not have to know whether a sign is valid or not.  It should be valid or it should not be there.

I'm not alone in that view.  The Traffic Commissioner shares it.   The Lendal Bridge fiasco a year or so ago meant York had to refund sums into the millions.   There is now a similar situation in North Yorks - see my post above for the Scarborough News report.   I can see no argument (other than the selfish, _"I know it has no validity so it can stay there" _for any sign to be outside a legal framework (N Yorks CC's words).


----------



## alcam (Dec 13, 2015)

maureenandtom said:


> You've put your finger on the problem.   One of the reasons why some of us (not me) want to allow the councils to erect unlawful signs (sorry, signs outside a legal framework) is that we know they have no validity.  It's my view that we should not have to know whether a sign is valid or not.  It should be valid or it should not be there.
> 
> I'm not alone in that view.  The Traffic Commissioner shares it.   The Lendal Bridge fiasco a year or so ago meant York had to refund sums into the millions.   There is now a similar situation in North Yorks - see my post above for the Scarborough News report.   I can see no argument (other than the selfish, _"I know it has no validity so it can stay there" _for any sign to be outside a legal framework (N Yorks CC's words).



I don't think it's selfish to accept a pragmatic solution . I think it's incredibly selfish to argue against one . 
If it is working leave it alone !


----------

