layby fee dodgers

[vwalan]

hi, just got back from a ludgven parish council meeting .
the campsite owners were there as well. the council are worried that toilet waste might be being tipped but not worried if its in the public toilet.
i put forward the eu directive on parking as tocamping . it was noted . the council are going to monitor it awile longer but it does seem like some sort of parking restriction .will or might be implemented on the stretch of that road . it is the roadside not exactly a layby .you can see it ob google its right oposite st michaels mount between the old station house and marazion. right by the sea wall.
there was it seems been plans to turn it into a cycle way but that seems to have been put aside due to locals not wanting it .
recomemdations to cornwall council to implement the scheme if they can.
the council dont want to frighten off tourists but would like to please the campsite owners as well if they can.
unfortunately this summer as been a disaster here and i think else where is similar.
thought i would go and hear what they had to say. i did mention free aires but was told not the time and place at the moment .
cheers alan.

 

[Firefox]

That is with the landowners permission and only 28 days in a year of habitation. How do you know that the number of days have not been exceeded? Do you ask the landowner for specific permission to park?

I also follow the same rule of one or two nights only, but in no way can we claim to be not causing a breach of the 1960 Act by the landowner.

Common land is owned by the commoners, it is not public land and even if unfenced it is an offence to drive a vehicle more than 15 yards onto it from the highway. Some roadside verges are common land, not part of the highway.

John

I'm pretty sure the wording of the exemption to the act goes something like that the landowner can't be prosecuted for a stay up to two nights. This is whether he knows about you or not. So I think you are wrong, we can claim to be not causing a breach of the 1960 Act by the landowner.

For example he could approach you, and you can say you'll be off in the morning. He can say "it's OK by me, but I may be prosecuted if I allow you to stay for sanctioning a camp without planning on my land" You can counter with "no you can't because I am only here for one night and there is an exemption for stays of up to two nights by a single unit"

All hypothetical of course, but it's as well to know where you stand.

 

[Deleted member 967]

I'm pretty sure the wording of the exemption to the act goes something like that the landowner can't be prosecuted for a stay up to two nights. This is whether he knows about you or not. So I think you are wrong, we can claim to be not causing a breach of the 1960 Act by the landowner.

For example he could approach you, and you can say you'll be off in the morning. He can say "it's OK by me, but I may be prosecuted if I allow you to stay for sanctioning a camp without planning on my land" You can counter with "no you can't because I am only here for one night and there is an exemption for stays of up to two nights by a single unit"

All hypothetical of course, but it's as well to know where you stand.

Hi Firefox

This is the wording in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960'

FIRST SCHEDULE
CASES WHERE A SITE LICENCE IS NOT REQUIRED

Use within curtilage of a dwellinghouse
1. A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a
caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment as such of a
dweflinghouse within the curtilage of which the land is situaited.

Use by a person travelling with a caravan for one or two nights
2. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a
site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan
site by a person travelling with a caravan who brings the caravan
on to the land for a period which includes not more than two nights—
(a) during that period no other caravan is stationed for the
purposes of human habitation on that land or any adjoining
land in the same occupation, and
(b) if, in the period of twelve months ending with the day on
which the caravan is brought on to the land, the number
of days on which a caravan was stationed anywhere on that
land or the said adjoining land for the purposes of human
habitation did not exceed twenty-eight.

Use of holdings of five acres or more in certain circumstances
3.—(l) Subject to 'the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule,
a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of
land which comprises, together with any adjoining land which is in
the same occupation and has not been built on, not less than five
acres—
(a) if in the period of twelve months ending with the day on
which the land is used as a caravan site the number of days
on which a caravan was stationed anywhere on that land
or on the said adjoining land for the purposes of human
habitation did not exceed 'twenty-eight, and
(b) if in the said period of twelve months not more than three
caravians were so stationed at 'any one time.

I have personally experienced a Planning officer keeping an eye on a site and gathering the details of when it was being used. He then visited the site to see if any exemptions were being used. He then told the landowner that if she permitted any more overnight stays she would be prosecuted. As well as this he said he would put a section 13 order on the land preventing it being used by exempted organisations and an order under the Town and Country Planning Act that would prevent any development at all. The land was being used by one caravan for one or two nights but the use had gone over the 28 day limit.

The fine is not devastating, but the other sanctions could be catastrophic.

For example he could approach you, and you can say you'll be off in the morning. He can say "it's OK by me, but I may be prosecuted if I allow you to stay for sanctioning a camp without planning on my land" You can counter with "no you can't because I am only here for one night and there is an exemption for stays of up to two nights by a single unit"

You are wrong in your example. The exemption has no effect if it has happened more than 28 days in a calender year by any caravan, (a vehicle towed or self propelled and adapted or constructed for human habitation). The landowner is responsible for keeping records of these stays to show he has not exceeded the 28 day limit.

He may have a defence by puting up signs saying he "No Overnighting" showing that he does not give permission for someone to stay. The sign has no actual legal standing, but does show that he is not allowing the overnighting to happen.

Whether he has given permission or not the number of days cannot exceed 28 days.

This law is not applied to truck drivers who have accomodation in their cabs as this was not possible when the act was drafted in the 1950s. The definition of a caravan would seem to cover such vehicles. Such vehicles would not be welcome on caravan sites so a blind eye is turned.

My opinion is that if it is not equally applied it is bad law. Natural England say the Act is out of date, but that it will not be amended due to the cost of redrafting new legislation.

John

 

[John H]

Natural England say the Act is out of date, but that it will not be amended due to the cost of redrafting new legislation.

This excuse is , of course, a nonsense. The costs are fixed. Our system does not work on the basis of employing people short-term every time a new law needs to be drafted; our system works on the basis that the civil servants, systems and buildings needed are there all the time and paid for whether there are ten or no new laws to be drafted that week.

I would not argue with your interpretation of the 1960 Act but I think it needs to be pointed out that the original issue was about highway land, not about private land, so the Act would not apply in that case and I have been told several times by the police that they are just not interested in prosecuting motorhomers who are sensibly and legally parked, whatever the time of day. It would be interesting to find out whether anybody out there knows of any motorhomer who HAS been prosecuted for parking overnight in lay-bys etc. in places where a local TRO does not apply.

 

[Smaug]

This excuse is , of course, a nonsense. The costs are fixed. Our system does not work on the basis of employing people short-term every time a new law needs to be drafted; our system works on the basis that the civil servants, systems and buildings needed are there all the time and paid for whether there are ten or no new laws to be drafted that week.

(snip)

But someone has to draft & propose a new Bill. The initial draft Bill would be drawn up by Lawyers, presumeably employed by Natural England as bill sponsors. That is likely to be very costly. It is very unlikely to be sponsored by the current Govt & was not in their manifesto. Sure it will go to the relevant Ministry Civil Servants to turn into an Act of law following debates & amendments, but the real problem in the process is always debating time in Parliament - successive governments have been churning out new laws at ever increasing rates for many years. Even the current mob, who promised to reduce red tape & regulation have actually done quite the opposite.

 

[sean rua]

Once again I'd like to point out that Mr Thompson has a thorough knowledge and understanding of the 1960 Laws
that were brought in, basically, to try to stamp out the travelling way of life.
The lawmakers basic principle was that if they could make it difficult to park up, then they could succeed in reducing the number of folk travelling the roads as a way of life.
Indeed, they succeeded in this aim. The numbers of active Travellers left on the drom was decimated, with many choosing to join the settled community.

Of course, all this was a great fillip to the developers. Not only was their way cleared to obtain "marginal land", but also, they were able to play up the extra demand for housing. Hence, the " building boom" of the early Sixties ( quickly followed by the "Energy Crisis", however.)

In many ways, 'twas a masterstroke to put the onus of responsibility oin the landowners: these guys were/are solid pillars of the community and, by their very nature, weren't going anywhere ( except to sell out to the relentless pressure of the developers who could then impose their own restrictions on land use.)

So, though nowhere near as draconian as the the anti-traveller laws brought in by Queen Elizabeth 1, where she made it law that an Englishman was duty-bound to kill any "Egyptian" on sight ( they called Romanichals "Egyptians" in those days),
we can see that the Sixties legislation was a tremendous blow to the travelling way of life in Great Britain.

Finally, in response to the query of JohnH, I can tell you that there is at least one "motorhome" at Oak Lane, Crays Hill, Basildon, and
this was NOT exempted from the order to move issued by the council.
As usual, the council has hit a few snags and things are not going smoothly for them, but it should be noted that this approach road (off Oak Lane) is privately owned by Travellers.
However, so was/is Dale Farm - but just look at the devastation done by the council there! :sad:


sean rua.

( via proxy or whatever it is that "Roger" used when he came back for his farewell speech)

 

[John H]

But someone has to draft & propose a new Bill. The initial draft Bill would be drawn up by Lawyers, presumeably employed by Natural England as bill sponsors. That is likely to be very costly. It is very unlikely to be sponsored by the current Govt & was not in their manifesto. Sure it will go to the relevant Ministry Civil Servants to turn into an Act of law following debates & amendments, but the real problem in the process is always debating time in Parliament - successive governments have been churning out new laws at ever increasing rates for many years. Even the current mob, who promised to reduce red tape & regulation have actually done quite the opposite.

It is ONLY Parliament that can pass a new law, so it doesn't matter how many lawyers anybody else employs, all they can do is put proposals before Parliament. Parliament will then decide whether they want to proceed or not and, if so, the Civil Service will draft the proposed new law. Any money spent by anybody else does not alter the fact that drafting a new law costs us taxpayers no more than not drafting a new law (unless you sack all the civil servants and draft no new laws!)

 

[John H]

........ in response to the query of JohnH, I can tell you that there is at least one "motorhome" at Oak Lane, Crays Hill, Basildon, and
this was NOT exempted from the order to move issued by the council.

Hi Sean

The example you give is of an eviction from private land, where the 1960 Act would apply. I was asking if anybody knew of any successful prosecution against motorhomers parking overnight in lay-bys.

 

[Deleted member 967]

Hi Sean

The example you give is of an eviction from private land, where the 1960 Act would apply. I was asking if anybody knew of any successful prosecution against motorhomers parking overnight in lay-bys.

Apart from TROs I can see no reason why a motorcaravan that is not causing an obstruction of a layby and is complying with other laws would be prosecuted. You may be asked to move on. If there were 6 or more persons or vehicles involved that are refusing to move on, then there are laws to enable a forced move. For a single vehicle a landowner would have to go to court and get an order to move the vehicle and occupier on. Only then would it involve the Police if they refused.

The first move is for the landowner or his representative to request you to move on. There is an owner for every bit of land in this country. If no owner can be found a piece of land or property can be fenced and occupied. If the occupation goes unchalenged for a set time you can claim ownership at Land Registry.

The Highway is owned just like any other land. Even unfenced common land has an owner (the commoners) and restrictions on driving on it apply.

John

 

[Firefox]

Use by a person travelling with a caravan for one or two nights
2. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a
site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan
site by a person travelling with a caravan who brings the caravan
on to the land for a period which includes not more than two nights

John, this is the bit I'm referring.

All the bit about 28 days etc is irrelevant, as I'm assuming in my example you just turn up on a bit of land for a night, and you haven't been there before, and neither has anyone else.

The land owner, knowing all this, would be wrong to say he could get done for a one or two night stay by yourself, as there is a clear exemption for a single unit for up to two nights.

I think this is quite useful for members to know.

 

[John H]

Apart from TROs I can see no reason why a motorcaravan that is not causing an obstruction of a layby and is complying with other laws would be prosecuted.

Hi Sean

This is exactly my point. The original post was about parking in a lay-by and, although the other points that have been made since about private land are very valid, I was trying to bring the thread back to the original point and let people know that they need not worry unduly about parking overnight in such a location unless there is a specific TRO. I asked the question about anyone knowing of prosecutions in the almost certain knowledge that nobody would come back with an example - because the police are just not interested in such prosecutions.

 

[sean rua]

Thanks to all for their replies.

JohnH,
Obviously I'm no lawyer, but, I am under the impression that the police/council/government have jurisdiction
over the "highway" which, as well as the carriageway, includes
all verges, lay-by s, or anything else up until the start of "private property" on both sides.

I remember a mate of mine sleeping off a session in Bodmin carpark. He had put the ignition in the boot.
When wakened by the police, they told him that he could still be breathalised here, if they so wished. They seemed to suggest that the carpark was just an extension of the highway, in this respect.

As it happens, they didn't take any action, as 'twas clear he wasn't doing anything but sleeping. I must admit that I do not fully understand the intricacies of the law in these cases. There seem to be plenty of "variables" in my opinion.:egg:

sean rua.

 

[John H]

Thanks to all for their replies.

JohnH,
Obviously I'm no lawyer, but, I am under the impression that the police/council/government have jurisdiction
over the "highway" which, as well as the carriageway, includes
all verges, lay-by s, or anything else up until the start of "private property" on both sides.

I remember a mate of mine sleeping off a session in Bodmin carpark. He had put the ignition in the boot.
When wakened by the police, they told him that he could still be breathalised here, if they so wished. They seemed to suggest that the carpark was just an extension of the highway, in this respect.

As it happens, they didn't take any action, as 'twas clear he wasn't doing anything but sleeping. I must admit that I do not fully understand the intricacies of the law in these cases. There seem to be plenty of "variables" in my opinion.:egg:

sean rua.

Hi Sean

Your mate's experience would seem to back up my point that the police are just not interested in people sleeping in vehicles on the highway, providing they are not breaking any other law. And it is interesting that nobody has yet provided an example of anybody who HAS been prosecuted in these circumstances. The message, clearly, is "keep your head down and don't worry". :wave:

 

[ricc]

as i understand it the council / highways authority only control adopted roads,,,, some trading estates are privatly owned... our local one is privatly owned so "policing" of the roads is down to the owner... theres yellow lines in places but plod cant do anyone for parking on them. a lot of the local rural untarmaced tracks are actually owned by the adjoining landowners,

if a layby is tarmaced its probably part of the highway .... if its untarmaced its likely the council aint the responsible body and its actually owned privatly or by another body.

from a landowners prospective getting shot of a group of travellers is a long drawn out legal nightmare....unless youve got the balls to spray them with manure.,,,
imho theres a lot of posturing by officialdom laying down the law which they cant actually enforce, but a lot of people beleive that officials only ever tell the truth and are perceived to have powers which dont actually exist.

 

[sean rua]

Yes, I'm pretty sure from past experience that action taken by authorities in regard to private property depends largely on who exactly are perceived to be the private owners. In other words, there may be a law that is supposed to apply universally ( bar all the legal exceptions that always pertain), but,
in execution,
we find that some are treated differently from others.
Nothing unusual: it happens all over the world and probably always will.

Personally, I am NOT convinced that much of the land we see is actually owned by those who claim it. Historically, this would seem almost impossible to prove, but, generally, the latest whim or fancy of some judge ( until overturned by another, equally subjective) holds in line with " possesion being nine tenths of the Law".

When we consider how heroes of English folklore such as Robin Hood lived in the trees while his enemy lived in the castle, it is difficult to see how even Friar Tuck , Maid Marion, or King Richard the Lionheart could sort out the paperwork. This, despite the legend that Hood was the rightful lord and master of all he surveyed around Sherwood, makes me wonder
about the current state of play in the land.

When we consider all the centuries of dodgy dealing by bankers and lawyers that must have gone on since then, it would be amazing if the Land Registration Office has managed to get things absolutely squeaky clean, imo.
Far more likely that, just as in brag or poker, richest man wins, that those able to to dominate proceedings stayed on top of the pile ( till toppled ).

--

The same sort of "survival of the fittest" would apply to manure spraying, imo. You or I do it, we'd be in the calaboose; somebody else, with the "right credentials" would be commended and honoured as a national hero.
There again, it's not always clear cut. I remember the case of a guy who got so vexed by some bggr who parked in his way that he discharged his lorryload of readymixed concrete into the moosh's car through the open window!
He was done for it.

Goodness knows what would happen if one of these here big white plastic ice-cream vans got concreted in.

I suppose the blame would go onto the landowner - if they could ever find out who exactly that was. :egg:

---

Btw, that 1994 Act is the clincher. If they have trouble with the 1960 stuff, that 1994 one is almost unbeatable, imo.

:scooter:


sean rua.

 

[Roadagent]

Just driven past Marazion layby, en-route to Boardmasters gig..
Six hippie trucks with chimneys and a couple of flash motorhomes.
Looks clean and tidy as far as I could see.
:dance:

 

[vwalan]

bet at the marazion end there was an ex horse box conversion. it was there when i looked the other day. there was a white one in front of it both with chimneys .
but not making a mess .just parked there. in fact almost you could say all looked very clean .just a bit aged.
there was mention that last sunday morning early there were also m,homes on the council run carparks close by and on the old station carpark. the campsite folk thought that was wrong . i did ask how many cars were there as well but nobody had counted them. i did say a motor home is a category m1 that is really a car with a special body and should be tret as a car.
when there was mention of perhaps no sleeping in vehicles i quickly informed them that it must be all vehicles and the same as the restricted parking all vehicles . i used the spanish /portugese directive as to parking verses camping . the parish council kind of almost agreed but would like to monitor it all for longer. lets hope every one parks not camps .

 

[Smaug]

bet at the marazion end there was an ex horse box conversion. it was there when i looked the other day. there was a white one in front of it both with chimneys .
but not making a mess .just parked there. in fact almost you could say all looked very clean .just a bit aged.
there was mention that last sunday morning early there were also m,homes on the council run carparks close by and on the old station carpark. the campsite folk thought that was wrong . i did ask how many cars were there as well but nobody had counted them. i did say a motor home is a category m1 that is really a car with a special body and should be tret as a car.
when there was mention of perhaps no sleeping in vehicles i quickly informed them that it must be all vehicles and the same as the restricted parking all vehicles . i used the spanish /portugese directive as to parking verses camping . the parish council kind of almost agreed but would like to monitor it all for longer. lets hope every one parks not camps .

But motorhomes are classed as "caravans" by other laws. Not sure I want the law cleared up on this as i would rather be able to chose which title was more beneficial in any given situation! Caravan road tax would be nice!

 

[vwalan]

you cant have your cake and eat it. by at least getting equal oportunities for m,homes and cars seems fair .banning m,homes means banning cars isnt what the council want or any tourist board so i think its the best of the evils.
course i could have done ,said nothing and just let the campsite win.
let them just ban m,homes would that please you.
as most never really bother to take part in defending m,homes rights maybe i shouldnt have bothered ..

 

[sagart]

Personally, I am NOT convinced that much of the land we see is actually owned by those who claim it. Historically, this would seem almost impossible to prove, but, generally, the latest whim or fancy of some judge ( until overturned by another, equally subjective) holds in line with " possesion being nine tenths of the Law".
sean rua.

Had some experience of this some years ago in Whitworth, Lancashire.
A local "landowner"suddenly claimed he owned the site of the parish church's demolished Sunday School building (demolished in the 1800's) and no proof was required of him for this.
The church however had to produce evidence that it had used the site for over 100 years and that it had been known as the "church's" for over 50 years to contradict his claim.
Personal experience? I was vicar there at the time Whitworth Town Council - Places of Worship