More bad news ahead.

mariesnowgoose said:
No. To be expected. The media aren't generally held to account for much.
They can publish or air any BS they want.
Unless you sue them. 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...
They control the website so will only let what they want show up there. These days you need to use Facebook, Twitter etc, they usually respond to that as there are millions of folks waiting to pick things up and shout on there.
 
At last I have received a reply from Matthew Pells the reporter who wrote the first post. They have now added a new post today with a bit more detail included and he says that he is going tom follow the story up in the future.

More Facilities Needed For Campervans on the Yorkshire Coast

Scarborough Borough Councillors look for solutions after complaints from residents about rubbish and excrement being left behind.
www.thisisthecoast.co.uk www.thisisthecoast.co.uk
 
TissyD said:
At last I have received a reply from Matthew Pells the reporter who wrote the first post. They have now added a new post today with a bit more detail included and he says that he is going tom follow the story up in the future.

More Facilities Needed For Campervans on the Yorkshire Coast

Scarborough Borough Councillors look for solutions after complaints from residents about rubbish and excrement being left behind.
www.thisisthecoast.co.uk www.thisisthecoast.co.uk
Click to expand...
That's considerably more balanced. However, I still have to question whether anyone with their own toilet and enough space for several bin bags would leave excrement or rubbish behind. This seems yet another case of someone's seen a few campervans and automatically blamed them rather than the real culprits.
 
Just more bullsh*t from people who want our money, but not the inconvenience of us actually being there. It would suit them if we just sent a cheque to Scarborough council, & didn't actually go at all. Never again, they've seen the last Bear dollar they'll ever see ......
 
The sooner the penny drops that what’s required is a pragmatic response from those in authority the better. Also cheap shots from journalists, winding up the ill informed is completely unforgivable and counterproductive.
We are not asking for much, just a physical place to park overnight in carparks that are otherwise lying empty. What’s the problem, are car parks not meant to furnish such requirements, why in gods name do they limit their use. I was in Callander yesterday morning. They have signs saying you can’t sleep overnight. What idiot came up with this nonsense.

Fife and Highland councils are dealing with our requirements in a pragmatic way. We don’t want to see carparks full of Motorhomes, but if you limit where we can park that’s exactly what they will get. Hence my concerns over what’s happened at Bocastle where barriers have been erected by the forestry commission after redeveloping the car park. Now anyone turning up will be forced to park up across the road, leading to issues there.

Many thanks Tissy D for all your efforts.
 
Fisherman said:
The sooner the penny drops that what’s required is a pragmatic response from those in authority the better. Also cheap shots from journalists, winding up the ill informed is completely unforgivable and counterproductive.
We are not asking for much, just a physical place to park overnight in carparks that are otherwise lying empty. What’s the problem, are car parks not meant to furnish such requirements, why in gods name do they limit their use. I was in Callander yesterday morning. They have signs saying you can’t sleep overnight. What idiot came up with this nonsense.

Fife and Highland councils are dealing with our requirements in a pragmatic way. We don’t want to see carparks full of Motorhomes, but if you limit where we can park that’s exactly what they will get. Hence my concerns over what’s happened at Bocastle where barriers have been erected by the forestry commission after redeveloping the car park. Now anyone turning up will be forced to park up across the road, leading to issues there.

Many thanks Tissy D for all your efforts.
Click to expand...
It is strange isn't it ?
Bocastle etc are , possibly , singular situations but I do think people in general have a problem getting their head round the idea of sleeping , peeing etc [?] in a van
 
alcam said:
It is strange isn't it ?
Bocastle etc are , possibly , singular situations but I do think people in general have a problem getting their head round the idea of sleeping , peeing etc [?] in a van
Click to expand...
I suspect it's something to do with an ill-informed preconception that anyone sleeping in a vehicle must be some sort of undesirable vagrant. It would seem that most bans, height barriers, etc. are in response to NIMBYs. However, it seems that even Cornwall Council (possibly the most anti-motorhome authority in UK) can't justify their bans when asked to do so under FOI. I was going to link an interesting article on the subject, but it's on a site that might be viewed as competing with this one and so the link isn't permitted under the rules. Thus, I'm quoting some of the matter here under 'fair use':

A previous FOI (Freedom of Information) request made to Cornwall Council in 2015 by a Mr David Bukhari, asked 13 questions which cover most of the legal factors any council would have to consider in pursuing such an action.

Although the request did not initially go well, with the Council simply sending copies of ‘Gypsy and Traveller Service, Managing Unauthorised Encampments Procedure’ and Gypsy and Traveller Service, Statement of Policy in relation to Unauthorised Encampments on land controlled and/or owned by Cornwall Council.’ There were no more documents given.

Mr Bukhari, not impressed by this reply, filed a complaint which heeded an apology and a full response.

The main points of the reply from Cornwall Council that are appropriate to note in accordance with this discussion are as follows –

1. Please clarify your policy regarding overnight sleeping in vehicles on the highway, road verge, lay-by, or car park, specifically Campervans/part conversions, Motor homes and HGV commercials.
We don’t have a highway policy as such. Part IX the Highways Act 1980 (Lawful and Unlawful Interference With Highways and Streets) gives us certain powers to remove obstruction, but it would be extremely difficult to make a case for someone causing an obstruction at 3 o’clock in the morning.

2. Please provide details of law used to enforce this policy.
Highways Act 1980 as above in terms of obstruction, but see comments in 1 above. I don’t think we’ve ever attempted to use it in this respect.

3. What areas, ie districts/specific roads/car parks are covered by this law and which are not?
Only the public highway.

4. Who is responsible for enforcing this policy?
In terms of the Highways Act, it would be Cornwall Council as highway authority.

5. What powers are available to them?
Only those defined in the Highways Act 1980.

6. What is the step by step method of dealing with a vehicle suspected of having been slept in?
The fact that it’s being slept in is irrelevant in highway terms.

7. What are the penalties for a proven offence, and who is liable?
For obstruction the penalties are listed in the Highways Act. For sleeping in a van – I don’t know.

8. With whom does the burden of proof lie?
For obstruction, we as highway authority decide.

9. What evidence is necessary to prove an offence or innocence?
For obstruction, we as highway authority decide. For certain sections of the Highways Act, the offending person can appeal against the decision.

10. What safeguards are in place to ensure that the principles of the Vagrancy act are not improperly applied to Gypsies and travellers or people who can give good account?. As specified in amendment s4
We don’t consider the Vagrancy Act. If someone is obstructing the highway, we deal with it under the Highways Act irrespective of who the offender is.

11. If the vagrancy act is being used, where are the reasonably accessible places of free shelter that suspected vagrants are directed to?
As 10 above.

12. Are the same principles applied to drivers of HGV vehicles, required to take rest periods by law?
As 10 above.

13. At South Fistral, Newquay, there are signs saying no camping or cooking. Please define cooking, with regard to this sign, and provide details of protocol, burden of proof, penalties and supporting law.
I don’t know the answer to this. It may well be a local bylaw.

14. Are those accused of offending obliged to say anything in their defence. Which Law requires this?
See 9 above.

Mr Bukhari then went on to ask –​

  1. Am I right in concluding that sleeping in a vehicle on the highway, or layby, verge, or council car park is not an offence. Presuming that the vehicle is not an obstruction?
  2. Am I correct to assume any council agent or employee would be aware of this and that they would be acting outside their jurisdiction were they to claim otherwise?
  3. The Council does not use the vagrancy act, and its employees and agents would be working outside their jurisdiction were they to claim otherwise. Is this correct?
  4. The signs at South Mistral referred to in point 13 of the FOI request: I need a clear answer to that and to point 14 please.
  5. Who exactly from the Council, or their agents, has the job of preventing people from sleeping in vehicles?
To clarify, if approached, how would one know if the person had the right to apply a wheel clamp, penalty ticket, or require them to move, as claimed? What identification would they carry?

To date these questions have not been answered!!! Make of that what you will. We do however intend to re-issue this FOI request and have these questions answered.
Click to expand...
 
GeoffL said:
I suspect it's something to do with an ill-informed preconception that anyone sleeping in a vehicle must be some sort of undesirable vagrant. It would seem that most bans, height barriers, etc. are in response to NIMBYs. However, it seems that even Cornwall Council (possibly the most anti-motorhome authority in UK) can't justify their bans when asked to do so under FOI. I was going to link an interesting article on the subject, but it's on a site that might be viewed as competing with this one and so the link isn't permitted under the rules. Thus, I'm quoting some of the matter here under 'fair use':
Click to expand...

What’s required are policies which would require local authorities to make provisions. The current situation with all of its paranoia, nimbyism, and misinformation, is not working.
 
I have suggested to the news reporter that both of those reports should have been combined, that way it wouldn't have sounded so much that all the council were agains us.
 
GeoffL said:
I suspect it's something to do with an ill-informed preconception that anyone sleeping in a vehicle must be some sort of undesirable vagrant. It would seem that most bans, height barriers, etc. are in response to NIMBYs. However, it seems that even Cornwall Council (possibly the most anti-motorhome authority in UK) can't justify their bans when asked to do so under FOI. I was going to link an interesting article on the subject, but it's on a site that might be viewed as competing with this one and so the link isn't permitted under the rules. Thus, I'm quoting some of the matter here under 'fair use':
Click to expand...
So , basically , we can assume if we get 'done' for sleeping , cooking etc the case will never see the inside of a court ?
Not guilty m'lud
 
alcam said:
So , basically , we can assume if we get 'done' for sleeping , cooking etc the case will never see the inside of a court ?
Not guilty m'lud
Click to expand...
Please note that I am not a lawyer, this is my personal opinion only and doesn't constitute legal advice:

It depends ... AFAICT, even though it seems the council cannot justify their bans etc., that doesn't mean they can't pursue you for contravening them if a byelaw or TRO is in place that specifically makes sleeping, cooking, etc. an offence. The case would be dealt with in a magistrates' court, you could be fined if found guilty and the offence would appear on your criminal record. However, again AFAICT, the byelaw, TRO or other legislation you would contravene must be stated on the restriction notice for it to be enforceable.

So, if no byelaw etc. mentioned the most they can do at the moment is to ask you to leave unless they can claim you're causing an obstruction. Of course, that is about to change and soon they will be able to order you to leave...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top