Penalties

[vwalan]

seems we can read the tro rules yet still some of the powers that be cant read or understand them. its almost set in stone . why would they try to differ from the rules. unless its just to scare you . if you know the rules any sign not correct is just a waste of funds better spent somewhere else.
plus every time we find one of their mistakes unfortunately it costs the local public money even more as they first denie it then try to cover up their mistakes . but all the time they collect their wages in private jobs they would bemade unemployed as useless .
itys not just the top ones either .it goes down the line .thepeople that make the sign have copies of the rules even the man that puts up the sign must know its not correct (or different from the norm)the whole authority stinks from top to bottom.

 

[maureenandtom]

I'm not too bothered about honest people making honest mistakes with colour of letters, size of print and so on. It's when these criminals deliberately set out to mislead us. Erecting notices for their own unpublicised purposes.

It's my guess that they're all at it. And then they smugly say, “Well, if you don't like us misleading you, elect somebody else.” We can only do that if we know you are dishonest. If we know you are dishonest then you're not very good at it and you wouldn't get elected in the first place.

The signs put up by the Local Authorities and National Parks are legally enforceable. They must state under which by-law they have be put there. It is signs put up by landowners that have no legal standing.

John, can you point me to where you got that ruling in bold from, please.

 

[John H]

I'm not too bothered about honest people making honest mistakes with colour of letters, size of print and so on. It's when these criminals deliberately set out to mislead us. Erecting notices for their own unpublicised purposes.

It's my guess that they're all at it. And then they smugly say, “Well, if you don't like us misleading you, elect somebody else.” We can only do that if we know you are dishonest. If we know you are dishonest then you're not very good at it and you wouldn't get elected in the first place.

Most people don't deliberately set out to mislead but I agree that it is annoying when they do. However, if we got uptight about all things that are misleading we would be annoyed all the time. What about advertising (99% of it designed to mislead) or political manifestos (ditto) or people who put up signs saying "trespassers will be prosecuted" when (currently) it is a civil not a criminal offence or those who put "beware of the dog" signs in their vans when they don't have dogs or those who claim that Manchester United are the greatest football team in the world etc etc? To call elected councillors "criminals" because they put up notices saying that the council disapproves of something, even if the notice implies a penalty that cannot be enforced, is going over the top in a very big way.

I agree with those who say that if you obey the rules of common sense and park up overnight so as not to annoy people then for the most part nobody will bother you. If you decide to make a campaign out of everything you see then you can expect to have your card marked. Relax and enjoy the life we lead. Happy travels.

 

[Deleted member 967]

John, can you point me to where you got that ruling in bold from, please.

The highways authority (the Secretary of State in the case of trunk roads and, usually, the County Council for other roads) can pass Traffic Regulation Orders and enforce parking restrictions accordingly.
However, not all signs are backed up by such orders and are therefore unenforceable.

If you are unclear about a particular sign then look up the relevant council/government website to see whether there is an order.

Landowners can errect a sign to show that they do not give permission to park. They however must request you to leave. If they fail to get you to move on they have to call on the civil courts to issue an order to move you on.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
1994 c. 33Part V Powers to remove unauthorised campers Section 77

77 Power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land.

(1)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—.
(a)on any land forming part of a highway;.
(b)on any other unoccupied land; or.
(c)on any occupied land without the consent of the occupier,.
the authority may give a direction that those persons and any others with them are to leave the land and remove the vehicle or vehicles and any other property they have with them on the land.
(2)Notice of a direction under subsection (1) must be served on the persons to whom the direction applies, but it shall be sufficient for this purpose for the direction to specify the land and (except where the direction applies to only one person) to be addressed to all occupants of the vehicles on the land, without naming them..
(3)If a person knowing that a direction under subsection (1) above has been given which applies to him—.
(a)fails, as soon as practicable, to leave the land or remove from the land any vehicle or other property which is the subject of the direction, or.
(b)having removed any such vehicle or property again enters the land with a vehicle within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given,.
he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(4)A direction under subsection (1) operates to require persons who re-enter the land within the said period with vehicles or other property to leave and remove the vehicles or other property as it operates in relation to the persons and vehicles or other property on the land when the direction was given..
(5)In proceedings for an offence under this section 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..
(6)In this section—.
“land” means land in the open air;
“local authority” means—

(a)
in Greater London, a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;

(b)
in England outside Greater London, a county council, a district council or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

(c)
in Wales, a county council or a county borough council;

“occupier” person entitled to possession of the land by virtue of an estate or interest held by him;

“vehicle” includes—
(a)
any vehicle, whether or not it is in a fit state for use on roads, and includes any body, with or without wheels, appearing to have formed part of such a vehicle, and any load carried by, and anything attached to, such a vehicle; and

(b)
a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960;

and a person may be regarded for the purposes of this section as residing on any land notwithstanding that he has a home elsewhere.


The above Act is used to move Gypsies and Travellers on.

 

[maureenandtom]

The signs put up by the Local Authorities and National Parks are legally enforceable. They must state under which by-law they have be put there. It is signs put up by landowners that have no legal standing.

I read that as meaning the notice itself must state under which bye-law they have been put there.

Is that not so? The justification can be elsewhere?

 

[maureenandtom]

Most people don't deliberately set out to mislead but I agree that it is annoying when they do. However, if we got uptight about all things that are misleading we would be annoyed all the time. . . .

Then we must choose carefully the things we get uptight about. I thank you for your concern and will hold it close to my heart.

 

[yorkslass]

In a perfect world it would be good to have all the t"s and i"s crossed, unfortunately we don"t.I think the most important thing is to enjoy your time away and do your own thing sensibly.

 

[AndyC]

I read that as meaning the notice itself must state under which bye-law they have been put there.

Is that not so? The justification can be elsewhere?

This is a very interesting point.

As far as I have been able to discover there are no statutory requirements for the signage at local authority operated off-street car parks. Unlike the signs and markings for on-street parking places which are rigidly defined.

There is a requirement, when the local authority is making or amending a Traffic Regulation Order, for the details to be published in the local press and at the location where the regulation will have effect. This is laid down in The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations. What I can't discover is whether there is any requirement for the details of the TRO to continue to be displayed at the parking place.
The question then arises, if the full text of the TRO is not immediately available to anyone parking, can it legally be enforced?

AndyC

 

[John H]

This is a very interesting point.

As far as I have been able to discover there are no statutory requirements for the signage at local authority operated off-street car parks. Unlike the signs and markings for on-street parking places which are rigidly defined.

There is a requirement, when the local authority is making or amending a Traffic Regulation Order, for the details to be published in the local press and at the location where the regulation will have effect. This is laid down in The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations. What I can't discover is whether there is any requirement for the details of the TRO to continue to be displayed at the parking place.
The question then arises, if the full text of the TRO is not immediately available to anyone parking, can it legally be enforced?

AndyC

I too am unaware of any requirement for the details of the TRO to be permenantly displayed on the notice, which would mean that the notice has the full force of the order behind it without the necessity for those details to be displayed. But the only way to test this would be by taking a case to court - any volunteers?

 

[caspar]

In a perfect world it would be good to have all the t"s and i"s crossed,

You don't cross an "i" you dot it! :banana::banana::banana:

 

[caspar]

I too am unaware of any requirement for the details of the TRO to be permenantly displayed on the notice, which would mean that the notice has the full force of the order behind it without the necessity for those details to be displayed. But the only way to test this would be by taking a case to court - any volunteers?

Maybe it is this issue that people mean to refer to?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ckets-given-out-illegally-expert-reveals.html

 

[John H]

Maybe it is this issue that people mean to refer to?

Millions of parking tickets given out 'illegally', expert reveals - Telegraph

Interesting article - and it shows just how easy it is to find something that the local authority has done wrong, thus invalidating the parking order. All of which makes the question of whether or not the details of the TRO need to be permenantly displayed a little academic - because you can usually find something else to get them on!

 

[vwalan]

be it parking ,speeding or just about any of these type suposed offences it always pays to investigate them. there is about a 90%percent chance the authorities have done something wrong. they are incompedant beyond belief. like i keep saying it could be council /police doesnt matter they are all incompedant. they even send intended prosecution notices out signed by the wrong people,ie>not authorized. the whole system is flawed. the traffic signs directive is available for all to see . its very strict in its discriptions yet they do not follow them. why?because they are useless. cheers alan. there is also proof on the internet that chief constables are liars as well. it happened just after the mess dorset police were in due to there incompedance.

 

[yorkslass]

You don't cross an "i" you dot it! :banana::banana::banana:

clever dick

 

[vwalan]

think you will find he is called david.