Petition: Amend PCSC Bill to withdraw power to seize vehicles used as mobile homes

  • Thread starter Deleted member 85077
  • Start date
This is going to adversely affect many people who live in their vans because they cannot afford to buy or rent a house or flat with the current property prices and rents, A case in point: my step daughter, she has two degrees and is a key worker in the NHS as a psychiatric nurse in Bristol. This new law is draconian and is par for the course from the likes of Priti Patel. It is a shameful attack on the vast majority of currently law abiding van dwellers.
 
It is about time that the law was returned to how it was before Tony Blair changed it. It stated that if someone was preventing you carrying out your normal work the police could move them on immediately. Not take 3 weeks to go to court for an order. The carpark in Bridlington and the skatepark have just had to be closed while the travellers were there. The council can make a byelaw every year banning drinking in the street why can't they do the same for unauthorised camps.
 
Drover said:
Section 4 is the bit that needs removing from the bill
www.gypsy-traveller.org

FFT calls for Part 4 of Police Bill to be scrapped - Friends, Families and Travellers

In May, Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT) made a submission to the Public Bill Committee, calling for the removal of Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (PCSC Bill). The submission, which can […]
www.gypsy-traveller.org www.gypsy-traveller.org
Click to expand...
AFAICT, Section 4 is completely reasonable unless you are of the opinion that the rights of those taking control of land by camping there against the express wishes of the landowner override landowners' rights to their own land.
 
Gaza1515 said:
Hi Guys, I know this is aimed at travellers, both new age and gypsy, however we occasional wild campers will be tared with the same brush.
Have a look at the website below, or don't I cant tell you what to do.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-bill-2021-unauthorised-encampments-factsheet

If you want to sign the petition then follow this link: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/583903
Click to expand...
"Van dwellers" are distinct from "travellers" which is a category with special protection under human rights legislation.
 
Wotascandal said:
because they cannot afford to buy or rent a house or flat with the current property prices and rents, A case in point: my step daughter, she has two degrees and is a key worker in the NHS as a psychiatric nurse in Bristol.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that put her on £25k+?
 
brian c said:
It is not just a certain part of the community taking over difficult to move Read about The motorhomers that sheerness are now serving notices on. Up at leysown near shellness the long lay-by by the beach up to 60 parked there. Some have been there over 9 months. Now if that is not cutting our own throats We stopped going there a year plus ago when there were20 plus parked there. Two of which were there every time we went there over a 2 month period Both had a W sticker. Whether still current members or …. I was asked on this forum last year what my opinion of wild camping was. Part of my reply was not staying in one place more then2/3 nights. That caused one person to be annoyed. Another to be upset a third to be confused. So I empathise this is an opinion not a law or a rule Ps one of the people in a Moho there says his children go to school from there and he has an allotment nearby. That sounds more like a resident then a motorhome to me. Brian
Click to expand...
Exactly the same happened on the sea front at Aberystwyth. When we travelled the west coastline of Wales we often stopped over night in Aber - can't anymore after inconsiderate people decided to stay for months at a time! At one point I counted 27 all in a line and most of them had gas bottles on the pavement and grey water taps dripping into the road. Quite a few had their dogs tied up to the van and unscooped poop on the pavement. At this particular time I counted 12 with the big green W - a nice advert I don't think! Oh and now? Not only is the parking area patrolled but the signs are very clear indeed since new legislation passed by the Council. Another lovely stopover ruined!
 
I believe that the canals and rivers of England have restrictions on how long you can stay in one place before being required to move on? Why not park-ups?
 
GeoffL said:
AFAICT, Section 4 is completely reasonable unless you are of the opinion that the rights of those taking control of land by camping there against the express wishes of the landowner override landowners' rights to their own land.
Click to expand...
At the other end of the spectrum is
Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
All fair I guess....
 
But, as far as I can see, this will apply also to land in public ownership. If so, then the Bill will be in conflict with other laws. You might remember the Court of Appeal ruling supporting the right of Travellers not to have their nomadic lifestyle obstructed. The ruling was about council injunctions but it's not too imaginative to include height barriers and such in the spirit of the ruling. I think Bill is an effort to get around the ruling.

2021-07-05_091239.jpg


Organisations such as "Liberty" equally concerned about things like the right to protest being taken away as part of the Bill.
 
Drover said:
At the other end of the spectrum is
Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
All fair I guess....
Click to expand...
What happenened after police and landowner arrived to cause vehicle to be seized and "you" in prison ? :)
 
Drover said:
At the other end of the spectrum is
Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
All fair I guess....
Click to expand...
Why post this? It's not how the law is proposed at all, it quite clearly says.

The offence will be committed if a person who resides or intends to reside with a vehicle on land fails to leave the land or remove their property without reasonable excuse when asked to do so by the occupier of the land, their representative or a constable and they have caused, or are likely to cause, significant damage, disruption, or distress (including anti-social behaviour).
Click to expand...
 
Drover said:
At the other end of the spectrum is
Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
All fair I guess....
Click to expand...
The "other end of the spectrum" is not as you portray it. If you stop on private land and along comes the owner, with or without the police, the vehicle could only be impounded if you refused to move within a reasonable time and without reasonable excuse, or had been asked to leave within the previous 12 months and had returned without a reasonable excuse. Before commenting further, you might want to read the actual Bill, which I've linked below. The part you are trying to have removed starts on page 56 of the Bill (page 66 of the PDF).
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0133/210133.pdf
 
I don't see this as an issue, because if you 'camped' on someone else's land and they asked you to leave, would you refuse to do so, without good cause?

" The offence will be committed if a person who resides or intends to reside with a vehicle on land fails to leave the land or remove their property without reasonable excuse when asked to do so by the occupier of the land, their representative or a constable and they have caused, or are likely to cause, significant damage, disruption, or distress (including anti-social behaviour)."

We have a 'duty of care' for other people's property/land, and I certainly wouldn't be camped anywhere with the intention of causing significant damage or disruption to the owner's land, or be anti-social if asked to vacate the land. Inconvenient maybe, but anti-social - never.
If it is not my land/property, why would I.

I really can't see how this amendment is going to affect anyone, unless they have the 'intent' to refuse to leave, leave loads of rubbish behind, decimate the ground they are parked on, or be abusive or violent to the land owner or police. Can someone enlighten me?
 
Similar when the whole section 59 Law was introduced to try to control illegal use of offroad vehicles in unauthorised places...
(Section 59 (1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 establishes that where a police constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which contravenes section 3 or section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition ...)

The drivers of offroad vehicles were up in arms at the thought of their vehicles being seized....

Despite the fact that it was only ever intended as a tool to prevent illegal usage on unauthorised places....

Most cases of illegal/unauthorised use have resulted in the section 59 being issued as a warning....

Only as a last resort have vehicles been impounded (and mostly due to not insurance issues)
Including the tit that drove his frontera up Snowdon several times.

The whole section 59 has frankly been a good thing for legal drivers on legal byways as its given the police a easy to apply tool to deal with the Neds....

I suspect the above will be the same....
 
TR5 said:
I don't see this as an issue, because if you 'camped' on someone else's land and they asked you to leave, would you refuse to do so, without good cause?
Click to expand...
Will they be required to show proof of ownership otherwise could just be any nimby
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top