advice : on no overnight sleeping and caravans signs

[maureenandtom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.