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

[Val54]

Their website seems to indicate that any legal actions are instigated or acted upon by the CIO in their case

Charitable incorporated organisation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's right, the "FoQ" are a CIO but they operate in exactly the same way as any other registered charity with a constitution that has to be deposited with the Charity Commission. The main difference between a registered charity and a charity registered as CIO is the extent of liability of the trustees. It makes no difference to their ability to make management/legal decisions in accordance with their constitution.

 

[Tookey]

Perhaps you should write to ‘Friends Of Quantock’ and ask them on what grounds or ‘rights’ do they have to introduce a parking restriction on this specific public land.

If you are interested in the message I sent;

Dear Sir/Madam,

Recently I visited the Quantock Hills, firstly I would like to congratulate you and your charity in managing to maintain such a beautiful environment, it was a very enjoyable visit.

I am contacting you with regards to a 'no overnight camping' sign located in the car park I visited and I presume all that you maintain. My personal circumstances with regards to camping is that myself and family travel in a self contained motorhome, this includes a toilet and sink where all waste is contained and a hob cooker so there is no requirement to cook (BBQ) outside. Our practice is to enjoy where we stay overnight but leave no evidence that we have been there, this also includes a 'litter pick' of car parks where we do stay.

My question is why have you restricted all camping in any form and have you done so in a legal manner?

Yours Sincerely

Guy

 

[Tookey]

Perhaps you should write to ‘Friends Of Quantock’ and ask them on what grounds or ‘rights’ do they have to introduce a parking restriction on this specific public land.

As you can see I have and am interested in their reply but in doing so I am concerned that in this case and similar all I (we) achieve is an organisation starting proceedings to make their ban legal and therefore enforceable, not a good outcome for our community.

I am interested in other forum members thoughts on this

 

[Fisherman]

As much as I admire CAMpRA and all they are doing, I think it’s time that they or another organisation started action to achieve an act of Parliament giving us rights which would override local authorities, in their obvious bias in some cases against us. Without this we are at the mercy of the great Il informed and unwashed who seem to frequent local politics. Friends of Quantock would be powerless to do what they are doing now.

 

[Val54]

As you can see I have and am interested in their reply but in doing so I am concerned that in this case and similar all I (we) achieve is an organisation starting proceedings to make their ban legal and therefore enforceable, not a good outcome for our community.

I am interested in other forum members thoughts on this

I don't think your fears would be realised. The FoQ prohibition on overnight parking is already legal if the decision was taken in accordance with their constitution. If you stayed overnight you would be trespassing. However, in the real world, the sign is only a deterrent at the moment, as it is extremely unlikely that the FoQ would have the time and resources to pursue the odd overnight camper. However if the new Bill is passed into law, they will have the option to engage with the police to get an unauthorised encampment moved on. The signs indicate that anyone staying overnight does not have the owner's permission, so provided the campers refuse to move and are causing significant detrimental issues, the police would be able to act.

As much as I admire CAMpRA and all they are doing, I think it’s time that they or another organisation started action to achieve an act of Parliament giving us rights which would override local authorities, in their obvious bias in some cases against us. Without this we are at the mercy of the great Il informed and unwashed who seem to frequent local politics. Friends of Quantock would be powerless to do what they are doing now.

In our "democracy" that type of Act is never going to happen whatever organisation is involved. The old adage remains so true, if you want to change something you have to make "the ill informed and unwashed" into the minority by getting elected and developing a power base of influence within local authorities.

 

[Tookey]

I don't think your fears would be realised. The FoQ prohibition on overnight parking is already legal if the decision was taken in accordance with their constitution. If you stayed overnight you would be trespassing. However, in the real world, the sign is only a deterrent at the moment, as it is extremely unlikely that the FoQ would have the time and resources to pursue the odd overnight camper. However if the new Bill is passed into law, they will have the option to engage with the police to get an unauthorised encampment moved on. The signs indicate that anyone staying overnight does not have the owner's permission, so provided the campers refuse to move and are causing significant detrimental issues, the police would be able to act.


In our "democracy" that type of Act is never going to happen whatever organisation is involved. The old adage remains so true, if you want to change something you have to make "the ill informed and unwashed" into the minority by getting elected and developing a power base of influence within local authorities.

My understanding of a legal ban included the presence of a sign or the information accessible such as on a website dictating the terms of the bans (vehicle type, times etc) and the consequences of ignoring (penalties etc).

Do you know if I am I wrong?

 

[Val54]

In some circumstances I am sure you are right, e.g. local highway authorities absolutely have to be crystal clear and have followed the correct procedures if they hope to enforce a prohibition. It is the enforcement aspect that is crucial and where I wouldn't agree with MaureenTom regarding fraud. Supposing FoQ has experienced an unauthorised encampment which cost them several hundred pounds to clear up. If the membership through their committees voted for no overnight parking as a response in accordance with their constitution, it wouldn't be fraudulent. They, rightly or wrongly, have decided that that is the best course of action for the management of the area for which they own and are responsible. Contravention of the overnight ban becomes trespass. How the FoQ would procure sufficient evidence to satisfy a court of law that trespass had occurred with only a sign that could be widely interpreted is the point at which I say it would never happen under the current legislation.

 

[Tookey]

In some circumstances I am sure you are right, e.g. local highway authorities absolutely have to be crystal clear and have followed the correct procedures if they hope to enforce a prohibition. It is the enforcement aspect that is crucial and where I wouldn't agree with MaureenTom regarding fraud. Supposing FoQ has experienced an unauthorised encampment which cost them several hundred pounds to clear up. If the membership through their committees voted for no overnight parking as a response in accordance with their constitution, it wouldn't be fraudulent. They, rightly or wrongly, have decided that that is the best course of action for the management of the area for which they own and are responsible. Contravention of the overnight ban becomes trespass. How the FoQ would procure sufficient evidence to satisfy a court of law that trespass had occurred with only a sign that could be widely interpreted is the point at which I say it would never happen under the current legislation.

That is an interesting conundrum as I do not want to trespass and won't knowingly but I am concerned that 'no overnight parking' signs are being unjustly erected. I went on their website after reading the sign and could not locate any material that stated I would be trespassing, no information on parking at all, the site even states 'that the land remain in public ownership' so I stayed

I am hoping they reply as I would like to point them in the direction of organisations trailling parking with donations.

 

[Lemut]

This isn't going to be used against us. It may even have a positive impact as height barriers etc. are not required if travellers can be quickly evicted.

I would like to think so but the not in my backyard groups will see it as a golden light to stop park-ups like those on sea fronts etc..

 

[st3v3]

Imagine the conversation at 1900hrs on a Friday night.

"Hello Police. How may we help?"

"Hi, it's FoC"

"Who?"

"There is a van sleeping in our carpark"

"Ok madam, do you need that parking space for something now?"

"No."

"Are the occupants making a fire or something"

"No."

"Ok, what's the reg number?"

"AB11 ABC"

"The van is showing as fully taxed and insured."

"So are you going to drive to our carpark in the middle of nowhere and move them?"

"Baaahaaahaaa. No."

Click, brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

 

[Tookey]

Imagine the conversation at 1900hrs on a Friday night.

"Hello Police. How may we help?"

"Hi, it's FoC"

"Who?"

"There is a van sleeping in our carpark"

"Ok madam, do you need that parking space for something now?"

"No."

"Are the occupants making a fire or something"

"No."

"Ok, what's the reg number?"

"AB11 ABC"

"The van is showing as fully taxed and insured."

"So are you going to drive to our carpark in the middle of nowhere and move them?"

"Baaahaaahaaa. No."

Click, brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I agree that that is exactly the present scenario but it's the erosion of rights and the possibility of enforcing wardens employed by organisations in the future, councils especially using the Act

 

[maingate]

I am not signing that petjtion because the wording is too vague. It sounds like a 'get out of jail' card for the people who are causing all the trouble. Travellers live in vehicles too and can claim discrmination if the change only applies to certain groups and not them.

 

[Val54]

The petition is poorly worded and only requires the removal of the proposed police power to seize a vehicle, the proposed powers to require occupiers to move would remain along with potential prosecution and increasing fines in the event of non-compliance. Although I have concerns about the bill, the petition doesn't deal with the whole issue. As the petition is worded I can imagine the government will simply say that the power to seize a vehicle would only be used as "a last resort in extreme circumstances".

 

[Fisherman]

When I first read this act it was clear that it was full of ambiguity, lacking in clarity and directed towards travellers. But my concern is this could lead to changes that would affect wild camping in England. In England it seems that landowners are becoming more empowered and the public who wish to have limited access are being ignored more and more. Unlike in Scotland were the land reform act gave greater rights of access for wild campers, England seems to be heading in the opposite direction.

 

[Val54]

When I first read this act it was clear that it was full of ambiguity, lacking in clarity and directed towards travellers. But my concern is this could lead to changes that would affect wild camping in England. In England it seems that landowners are becoming more empowered and the public who wish to have limited access are being ignored more and more. Unlike in Scotland were the land reform act gave greater rights of access for wild campers, England seems to be heading in the opposite direction.

Perhaps we need a motorhome equivalent to the 1932 Kinder mass trespass to get some attention .............

 

[Tookey]

Perhaps we need a motorhome equivalent to the 1932 Kinder mass trespass to get some attention .............

Snake Pass maybe, then the papers would all make the reference

 

[Tookey]

If you are interested in the message I sent;

Dear Sir/Madam,

Recently I visited the Quantock Hills, firstly I would like to congratulate you and your charity in managing to maintain such a beautiful environment, it was a very enjoyable visit.

I am contacting you with regards to a 'no overnight camping' sign located in the car park I visited and I presume all that you maintain. My personal circumstances with regards to camping is that myself and family travel in a self contained motorhome, this includes a toilet and sink where all waste is contained and a hob cooker so there is no requirement to cook (BBQ) outside. Our practice is to enjoy where we stay overnight but leave no evidence that we have been there, this also includes a 'litter pick' of car parks where we do stay.

My question is why have you restricted all camping in any form and have you done so in a legal manner?

Yours Sincerely

Guy

The reply I received;

'Dear Guy, thank you for your email – and for your appreciation of Friends of Quantock and the work they do. The “no overnight camping” signs in parking areas on the Quantocks are provided and installed by the AONB Service where the landowners who own the parking areas have indicated this is their policy. As you are no doubt aware some overnight users have a harmful impact (unlike you) in respect of waste/litter particularly and this is not considered an acceptable burden for the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.'

I will post my reply shortly

 

[Val54]

That's an interesting reply which suggests the relevant local authorities have passed bye-laws rather than any action by FoQ themselves. If you intend to pursue it further, I would be writing to the local authority where this car park is located with a FOI request for chapter and verse on the when and how the bye-law was made. A quick search of the minutes of the ANOB Joint Management Committee suggests that illegal raves may well be one of the reasons for the overnight ban.

The online minutes are here ...

JAC Papers | Quantock Hills AONB

www.quantockhills.com

 

[Tookey]

My reply, as you can see I didn't think continuing with the legality of the ban was appropriate;

Chris,

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my query, it is appreciated.

With regards to overnight campers who do not act responsibly I sympathise with the AONB Service and landowners, I assure you that it frustrates me equally. Their actions directly damage the reputation of motorhomers and it is due to their poor behaviour that responsible campers are restricted or denied overnight access to areas of beauty such as the Quantock Hills.

Could I please ask you to consider the following and if you see merit then maybe share it with your colleagues and fellow organisations. Below is a link to the 'Stay the Night' website, an idea that is presently being trialled by Forestry and Land Scotland and the feedback so far is positive. You can digest it at your leisure if you wish but very briefly it is a scheme which allows self contained motorhomes to stay overnight in carparks at a reasonable cost.

https://forestryandland.gov.scot/staythenight

Presently the 'no overnight camping' in the Quantocks does not benefit either party, your charity and related organisations miss out on a source of visitors and potentially an income and myself and fellow responsible motorhome campers miss out on enjoying the beautiful surroundings for no more than a day visit. I am aware that ticket machines would not be appropriate in the Quantocks but maybe the opportunity to pay or donate on line could be considered.

I suspect you are still experiencing poor camping behaviour by some of those that choose to ignore the prohibitive signs, I ask you to consider if the right parties are being targeted by the blanket ban.


Thank you for your time and best wishes

Kind regards

Guy

 

[Tookey]

'Like' this post if you want to see any further correspondence if it takes place so I can gauge interest please