I picket up a ticket in Brighton

[spigot]

According to the O.E.D. Reside. v. Have one's permanent home in a particular place.

Therefore spending a few nights in a van does not constitute being in Residence.

Mr Loophole would drive a bus through that lot!

 

[guerdeval]

I don't know this area or Spigots reason for spending 3 days+ parked there or how he dealt with his ablutions, so, I have 'google mapped' it and it looks like a residential area near to a park in the middle of Brighton. So my question is, why would anyone differentiate between yourself and travellers?. Everyone can "bang on" about their rights to this and that but it will not stop wild campers being seen as a nuisance by parking in residential areas where they are clearly unwelcome. I can see the militancy that is becoming more evident on this site resulting in someone getting their van torched by an irate resident one day, maybe I'm wrong but I thought 'wild camping' meant doing it below the radar in places less conspicuous, I'm obviously in a minority and missing something?.

 

[Channa]

Hi Channa, Nice to see you so active – I'm slowing down. But I think I remember quite a lot about this and the stuff will be on an old computer which I'll fire up this evening. I tried searching on my old posts and, interestingly, I came across this thread of yours.

https://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forum...egally-illegally-3.html?highlight=Mr+Loophole

This is what I remember of it – does it tally with your memory? This loophole didn't come from Mr Loophole; it came from some council in the Midlands, I think, who reacted to a complaint that Travellers were not being targetted where other motorists (including us) were.

The council, a bit stupid like they often are, said well, they couldn't ticket Travellers because the Travellers had not entered into a contract with the council. Mr Loophole jumped on this and said that in that case all any motorist had to to was put a notice in the windscreen saying something like, “I'm not entering into a contract with the council – I'm parking illegally.”

And the council reacted angrily by saying that Mr Loophole wasn't being very helpful. But didn't deny that he was right.

He who should not ...etc had little beermat/tax-disc-like stickers printed with this sort of information on it but going further. Saying something like, “if you issue a PCN which you later lose on appeal then I will charge you a huge sum. You enter into an implied contract with me by issuing a PCN.”

I found the whole newspaper correspondence very funny and it was taken up by several newspapers which I should have copies of – or at least the URLs.

Incidentally, and only a little off-topic, I'm having a little ongoing correspondence with Conwy council just now – after Llandullas Beach was taken over by Travellers. I have told them I am a New Traveller and I demand the same recognition as any other Traveller. I'll try to write that up this evening too.


EDIT: I think this How to legally avoid paying UK parking charges | Motorhome Full Time explains the history and wil save me firing up an old computer.

Nick Freeman was correct , the latest rumble is the fines issued by Scarborough for breaching the PSPO mirrors those issued under by laws hence same tarrifs for a criminal and civil offence , It is argued as being illegal primary legislation so it is suggested be charged under civil law removing a criminal conviction

It was the Leicester case and freemans explanation of the s87 remedy which is why councils are moving to PSPO which remaindered me

I had a similar situation to Spigot had paid etc san successfully challenged Blackpool part of the argument had entered into a limited contract and less than clear signage

A few years ago now and they still haven't changed it, smacks of Lendal Bridge

Channa

 

[maingate]

There have been threads on various forums (including this one) of permanent communities springing up in City streets, consisting of Caravans, Luton vans and old vans etc. Bristol is (was?) a case in point. I seem to remember that it was beginning to be an issue in Brighton recently and they have acted to stop it. There will always be local residents who kick up about this and put pressure on the Council to do something about it. Cash strapped Councils will use the cheapest legal option to do something. Mind you, I believe many Southern Councils have not been targeted for cutbacks like the Northern ones. In fact some have had an increase in funding.

 

[phillybarbour]

Sound to me like it’s aimed at people living in a van long term in one town.

 

[GreggBear]

There have been threads on various forums (including this one) of permanent communities springing up in City streets, consisting of Caravans, Luton vans and old vans etc. Bristol is (was?) a case in point. I seem to remember that it was beginning to be an issue in Brighton recently and they have acted to stop it. There will always be local residents who kick up about this and put pressure on the Council to do something about it. Cash strapped Councils will use the cheapest legal option to do something. Mind you, I believe many Southern Councils have not been targeted for cutbacks like the Northern ones. In fact some have had an increase in funding.

Surely not?... The South being treated better than us from oop t'north. Business as usual there then....:idea-007:

 

[trevskoda]

AFAICT, they don't need to prove that someone's actually sleeping in the van as the legislation states, "If it appears to a local authority that persons are for the time being residing in a vehicle or vehicles within that authority’s area..." (my bold). So they just need to be of the opinion that you're living in the van, which they might infer from its being parked in the same bay for more than a day.

What appears is just that,you could have parked there and stayed in a mates house for the night so i dont think that would hold up.

 

[yorkieowl]

I don't know this area or Spigots reason for spending 3 days+ parked there or how he dealt with his ablutions, so, I have 'google mapped' it and it looks like a residential area near to a park in the middle of Brighton. So my question is, why would anyone differentiate between yourself and travellers?. Everyone can "bang on" about their rights to this and that but it will not stop wild campers being seen as a nuisance by parking in residential areas where they are clearly unwelcome. I can see the militancy that is becoming more evident on this site resulting in someone getting their van torched by an irate resident one day, maybe I'm wrong but I thought 'wild camping' meant doing it below the radar in places less conspicuous, I'm obviously in a minority and missing something?.

Spigot didn’t say he had parked for 3 days where he got the ticket, he said he had paid to park for 24 hours, then moved elsewhere for 3 days. A growing number of people only have mh’s/campers/vans as their only form of transport, the council could have monitored to see if he was there 2 or 3 days and then issued a ticket - fair enough, but otherwise why should they differentiate? I can just as easily park up and sleep in my car without the harassment, which I see this as.

 

[GeoffL]

What appears is just that,you could have parked there and stayed in a mates house for the night so i dont think that would hold up.

The legislation covers instances where it appears to a local authority (not to anyone else) that persons are for the time being residing in a vehicle. The legislation provides a defence: "[...] it is a defence for the accused to show that his failure to leave or to remove the vehicle or other property as soon as practicable or his re-entry with a vehicle was due to illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency." There is no defence of "I was staying in a mates house and not sleeping in the van", but I wonder just what constitutes an "other immediate emergency". So if the local authority is of the opinion that you are residing in the van, they have the right to require you to move on.

However, if you contact the local authority and persuade them that you are not 'residing' in the van, then it should no longer appear to them that you are and so I wonder whether that would remove the right under the legislation to move you on.