Sometimes we're our own worst enemies!

[John H]

Charging for Aires.
Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free................................that's not my experience.

This was your first statement in relation to French aires and it is this that I was referring to - and all I did was to politely refer you to the campingcar-infos website. Why are you getting so uptight about it?

 

[Northerner]

fully agree. (have deleted a few bits of the original posting to be clearer)

That's what competition is about. You have something others don't have, the market regulates itself. Nobody should be allowed to interfere with this to shift profits.

Apply some common sense. You wouldn't open an ice cream shop in antarctica. Supply and Demand.

You just don't get it do yo? It's nothing to do with a free market. Camp sites have lots of competition from other sites, from club sites and CLs and no one is protecting them from that or wants to. This is about denigrating a site owner because he objected to the council allowing free overnight parking for motorhomes on a large car park near his site. As a businessman who pays a lot of money to the council for the privilege of running his business he has the right to feel aggrieved if the council cuts his feet from under him by allowing such parking. Can't you understand that? It's nothing to do with fair competition. How can anyone compete with a local authority giving something away for nothing? I wish you'd answer that.

To sum up, I'm for for competition but it must be fair. Just as you have the right to protest if you think that you are being treated unfairly, so has the camp site owner and he shouldn't be branded by some of the appalling epithets that have been hurled at him on this site.

And to be honest, your Antarctica analogy just shows the depth of your argument. This site owner has been there for years and opened long before this started. And if you really believe that nothing should be able to interfere with the free market you are very deluded. Haven't you heard of the Monopolies Commission? An unregulated free market would be a disaster with the biggest growing bigger until they had total control of the market. Then there really would be no competition.

 

[John H]

Hi John

It is not the 24 hour vehicle parking that is the problem. It is the interference by the legislation in what is going on in the vehicle. They say if you use it for human habitation (cooking, eating or sleeping) then it ceases to be a means of transport and becomes a caravan. They then go on to say that the landowner requires a site licence and PP to allow caravans to use the land for human habitation. So parking is OK, but if you inhabit the parked vehicle it is not.

In the case of the public order act if the landowner gives permission, the Caravan sites Act comes into play and they then require a licence. If they haven't given permission they are required to move you on. If this fails the local authority will take action. 1) to move you on, and/or 2) prosecute the land owner for permitting you to stay without the required licence and PP.

The 28 day rule could be applied permitting 1 van for 1 night for no more than 28 nights in a calender year. How would you react if you were turned away if others had stayed there before you, but the 28 day limit had come into effect. For ease of administration it is easier to say no than get involved with the paperwork and legalities.

Heads they win, tails you lose.

John

As vwalan has said, and as policemen of my acquaintence have told me, there is virtually zero chance of the police enforcing such a ruling. Many laws have unintended consequences and such consequences are rarely followed through. And if a supermarket were to allow 24 hour parking then no court in the land would expect them to monitor the car park continuously in such a way as to ensure that nobody was inside the vehicle, so there is no question of them requiring a licence. This is not speculation - in (admitedly rare in this country) cases where supermarkets have allowed 24 hour parking I cannot recall one case of the 1960 Act being used against them. Finally, I repeat that there is no law forbidding sleeping in vehicles in England.

 

[John H]

How can anyone compete with a local authority giving something away for nothing? I wish you'd answer that.

I have said it before but I think it is worthy of repetition: if a Council allows people to park at night on car parks which would otherwise be empty and on which no services are provided then it is the local businesses that are likely to get something (ie custom) for nothing (ie no financial outlay by either them or the Council). Further, as anyone who has been moved on from a wilding spot will tell you, there is a miniscule chance of those being moved on meekly turning up at the local campsite. So banning overnighting benefits nobody. Where is the business sense in that?

 

[vwalan]

hi david .i stop at benidorm regularly .its easy to park there .possibly the easiest place in spain .
i only stop as my brother as an apartment there .we visit him if he is over there. just street parking .have stopped a week sometimes .loads do it .
you can play being a uk tourist for a week then go on your way .even play bingo or spend all night in kareoke bars . ha ha
i used to stop outside the golf club in altea nice there. now i prefer it closer to moriara.
madrid is another easy place . i find busier the place easier it is . same every where.

 

[maureenandtom]

Not snobbish at all. Exercising personal preference. And as you say, you wouldn't expect to see facilities in these places. They do very well without them.

However...

Where these places do provide places for motorhomes, it is unrealistic to condemn them, like Blackpool, Scarborough and now that I know if it, Havant for charging.




As an Aside: I typed this originally as "wouldn't expect to see Aires in these places." I deleted Aires and inserted your original "facilities" so as not to upset those who like all tees dotted and eyes crossed.

Why, or why, does everything have to be spelled out in the minutest detail?

 

[Teutone]

You just don't get it do yo? It's nothing to do with a free market. Camp sites have lots of competition from other sites, from club sites and CLs and no one is protecting them from that or wants to. This is about denigrating a site owner because he objected to the council allowing free overnight parking for motorhomes on a large car park near his site. As a businessman who pays a lot of money to the council for the privilege of running his business he has the right to feel aggrieved if the council cuts his feet from under him by allowing such parking. Can't you understand that? It's nothing to do with fair competition. How can anyone compete with a local authority giving something away for nothing? I wish you'd answer that.

To sum up, I'm for for competition but it must be fair. Just as you have the right to protest if you think that you are being treated unfairly, so has the camp site owner and he shouldn't be branded by some of the appalling epithets that have been hurled at him on this site.

And to be honest, your Antarctica analogy just shows the depth of your argument. This site owner has been there for years and opened long before this started. And if you really believe that nothing should be able to interfere with the free market you are very deluded. Haven't you heard of the Monopolies Commission? An unregulated free market would be a disaster with the biggest growing bigger until they had total control of the market. Then there really would be no competition.

why are you so wound up? Please lower your tone towards me. You can't force your opinion on me, like it or not.

I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it. I am not deluded, please stop patronising me.

And the Monopolies Commission is excatly there to stop for what you are basically asking, forming a monopol. (i.e. only WE sell sandwiches, so stop all the other as I am paying you to do so)

I give everybody the right to be aggrieved and speak up if one feels to be treated unfairly and I agree with you, the camp site owner shouldn't be branded. He has the right of free speech and his own opinion.

And as per dragons den, I am out. Has taken too much of my time already.

 

[maureenandtom]

Charging for Aires.

Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free. .... ..... . But that's not my experience.

This was your first statement in relation to French aires and it is this that I was referring to - and all I did was to politely refer you to the campingcar-infos website. Why are you getting so uptight about it?

That's right, John. It was. Here it is again. This time without omitting crucial words.

Charging for Aires. I

Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free. No stats to back that up of course, there never are, but it could be true. Perhaps overall, French Aires are still free. But that's not my experience.

My preference is for sea, sand and sun. My favoured French spots are coastal and, you know, my impression is that we have to wild camp like we used to do all the time or, increasingly, we have to pay for Aires in touristy attractive spots. Inland spots are possibly, even probably, still free but not so many in places where I want to go.

We can all strip out words from a statement and make it sound like something else. Politicians do it all the time. Anyone would think you were a .... (oops)

Lies through innuendo and omission? Hmm.

 

[John H]

Charging for Aires.
Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free. No stats to back that up of course, there never are, but it could be true. Perhaps overall, French Aires are still free. But that's not my experience.

My preference is for sea, sand and sun. My favoured French spots are coastal and, you know, my impression is that we have to wild camp like we used to do all the time or, increasingly, we have to pay for Aires in touristy attractive spots. Inland spots are possibly, even probably, still free but not so many in places where I want to go.

Quite happy for you to reproduce the quote in full - and just in case anybody missed it, I have reproduced it again. I edited simply for clarity - it would be daft to do it for any other reason since the original is here for everyone to see (three times now!). You took issue with somebody who said that the majority of French aires are free. In response I did not jump down your throat but simply referred you, politely, to a website that would demonstrate that in reality they are. Again, I ask - why are you getting so uptight about it?

 

[Canalsman]

Agreed.

If the campsite owner chose to do so, he could offer a parking option without use of facilities, and presumably at a reduced rate.

That might be an option that increases his turnover at very little cost to his business, in particular if this used capacity not taken up by those who were camping.

 

[Funky Farmer]

I'm somewhat bewildered here but that's nothing unusual.
Why should motorhomers be treated any differently to the rest of the camping fraternity? I can't see it myself.
Just askin'. Before anyone jumps down my throat.

 

[Deleted member 967]

As vwalan has said, and as policemen of my acquaintence have told me, there is virtually zero chance of the police enforcing such a ruling. Many laws have unintended consequences and such consequences are rarely followed through. And if a supermarket were to allow 24 hour parking then no court in the land would expect them to monitor the car park continuously in such a way as to ensure that nobody was inside the vehicle, so there is no question of them requiring a licence. This is not speculation - in (admitedly rare in this country) cases where supermarkets have allowed 24 hour parking I cannot recall one case of the 1960 Act being used against them. Finally, I repeat that .

Hi John

It is not a Police matter, they would only get involved if there was a possibility of violence. It is planning law enforced by the local authority planning officers. I know from experience that they will spend time monitoring situations and then act after they have gathered the evidence. They are not like the Police when they get a bit between their teeth they are not easily shaken off and planning law is there only concern.

Because there have been no reported prosecutions. It does not mean they haven't interviened and issued warnings. This could be seen in the same way as A-Frames. There have been no presecutions but the trailer regulations are still law.

We will simply have to agree again to disagree on the topic of "there is no law forbidding sleeping in vehicles in England". Quote: A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

John

 

[vwalan]

hi jonas try here.Portal CampingCar Portugal - O Portal Portugus de Autocaravanismo'
there is also a spanish document but it really only repeats whats here. but google 08/v-74 instructions from the general direction of traffic on the motor homes.
http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/spain/12586-instruccion-08-v-74-english.html.here you are already been done on this site.

 

[Funky Farmer]

hi jonas try here.Portal CampingCar Portugal - O Portal Portugus de Autocaravanismo'
there is also a spanish document but it really only repeats whats here. but google 08/v-74 instructions from the general direction of traffic on the motor homes.
http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/spain/12586-instruccion-08-v-74-english.html.here you are already been done on this site.

The page wasn't found! OK now I have found it and now my head is spinning LOL Anyway what has Spanish law got to do with parking over night in the UK. :sad:
Forget I asked the question but thanks for trying :lol-053:

 

[John H]

Hi John

It is planning law enforced by the local authority planning officers.

I think you'll find that car parking on private land, not land under the control of the local authority, which is what a supermarket car park is, is not monitored by local authority planning officers.

 

[vwalan]

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/spain/12586-instruccion-08-v-74-english.html

 

[John H]

I'm somewhat bewildered here but that's nothing unusual.
Why should motorhomers be treated any differently to the rest of the camping fraternity? I can't see it myself.
Just askin'. Before anyone jumps down my throat.

In addition to what has already been said, Jonas, I think there are insurance implications. An hitched caravan is covered by the road tax and insurance of the towing vehicle but an unhitched one isn't.

 

[vwalan]

jonas the spanish govt were taken to the eu courts this is a statement by their authority under the guide lines of the eu. we are part of the eu. portugal acept it thats why the first thread . we are obliged to acept it as eu ruling can sometimes over rule individual countries rules .

 

[AndyC]

I "liked" the post about Havant because of the statement that there was a clear distinction between parking and camping and therefore this regulation did not come under the 1960 Act.

It takes a lot to "rouse me to anger" so you will be pleased to know I am very calm today! The situation in Scarborough has never roused me to anger either. I have said several times that any move to making provision for motorhomes is to be welcomed but that some areas are a lot better than others in doing that. I suspect Scarborough Council's motives and I don't think their pricing policy makes any business sense at all, so I won't be staying there - but if others choose to do so, then that is up to them; I won't start telling them they shouldn't (and never have).

PS now that I am aware that Havant is charging a similar ammount, I probably won't be going there either - but I still "like" the message given in the distinction between camping and parking.

The distinction between 'parking' and 'camping' is not relevant. The 1960 Act refers to the use of the vehicle for 'human habitation', nothing to do with whether you put anything outside. Local councils do not need a site licence because, unlike other land owners, they are exempted from the part of the Act that requires a site licence to be held in order to operate a 'caravan site' on land in their control. Planning rules, however, do apply. The local planning department may take an interest if they consider that there has been a change of us of the land. In the case of Havant BC I understand that the local planners decided that the car park was still essentially a car park and therefore there was no change of use. In the case of Dawlish Warren the Teignbridge DC planning department considered that there would be a change of use and therefore planning permission was required. The potential expense involved caused the council to drop their plan to make the experimental motorhome overnight parking scheme permanent.

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

I think you'll find that car parking on private land, not land under the control of the local authority, which is what a supermarket car park is, is not monitored by local authority planning officers.

Quite likely not.

However the regular stopping of several motorhomes might cause them to take an interest.

What's more likely is that any permission to stay overnight would of necessity need to be approved by the supermarket head office, as soon as their legal dept looked into the licencing and other issues they would likely regard it as not being worth the hassle.

AndyC