Illegal “ No Motor caravan signs”

[gus-lopez]

Reasons 5, 6, and 7 are the key ones, if any Funster needs to challenge a Council Penalty Charge Notice in similar circumstances.

Well done Oldrat

Yes i noticed that straight away.

 

[Madcaravanner]

In terms of point 2, when I looked into this some time ago relating to changes in some car parks on the south coast, the council's T&C's - which anyone buying a ticket or using their car parks are subject to - stated that 'Motor caravan' on their signage means 'any vehicle adapted for sleeping', and the DVLA classification on a V5 was therefore completely irrelevant in their car parks.

Now COULD you argue a motorhome is NOT adapted for sleeping - it is built for sleeping a PVC is adapted a motorhome isn't

 

[Boldly]

Interesting how you all seem to like loopholes. But not if used by hookie Hamza or illegal immigrants

 

[Oldrat]

I’m sorry.

Parking signs and a terrorsit who has been convicted for inciting murder, what planet are you on

 

[Boldly]

Planet earth

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[nicholsong]

Interesting how you all seem to like loopholes. But not if used by hookie Hamza or illegal immigrants

It seems to me that, if Councils are putting up signs which do not have the backing of the law that they are required to follow, that it is they who are looking for 'loopholes', even trying to con the populace by putting up false signs in the hope that the public will bite on their con.

Any fines paid on the basis of these false signs are like Ponzi schemes.

 

[Jim]

Interesting how you all seem to like loopholes. But not if used by hookie Hamza or illegal immigrants

Well, Hamza a convicted criminal who did all he could to avoid extradition, and illegal immigrants, are well..illegal. so what exactly is the point you are trying to make about us all.

 

[DDJC]

Interesting how you all seem to like loopholes. But not if used by hookie Hamza or illegal immigrants

No idea why you made that connection, but essentially, yes, that is about the size of it.

I do like a loophole whereby an officious up-their-own-arse public body is thwarted by common sense, and made to reverse jobsworth policies put in place for no better reason that they have to justify their own existence.

I also like it when evil terrorists are kicked out of this country and sent to a country that understands better how to treat terrorists, or even better, when they are speedily facilitated on their way to meet whatever deity they espouse.

Think you will find that here is a world of difference between a terrorist being extradited and parking a motorhome in a car park.

 

[Verteuil Man]

From the far depths of my fading memory I recall that if a sign is not a prescribed sign (in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD)) it is considered to be an illegal obstruction. It is one of those little laws that is quite often overlooked as everyone seems to put signs out from selling potatoes to signs directing Funster to a rally. The latest edition is 2022 which superceded the 2016 edition.

 

[Boldly]

Maybe the connection with a terrorist is a bit strong. But the point was if you are willing to accept legal arguments when in your favour you must be willing to accept legal arguments when used by others

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[bigtwin]

From the far depths of my fading memory I recall that if a sign is not a prescribed sign (in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD)) it is considered to be an illegal obstruction.

And further, that it is not permissible to single out a particular vehicle type on any prohibition. What is permissible is to list the exceptions to any prohibition.

Thus it is not permissible to exclude motor caravans but it is permissible to exclude motor vehicles (with the exception of : mopeds, motorcycles, PSVs, invalid carriages, coaches, LGVs, HGVs, earthmovers, ……. you get the drift).

Ian

 

[DDJC]

Maybe the connection with a terrorist is a bit strong.

Maybe.

But the point was if you are willing to accept legal arguments when in your favour you must be willing to accept legal arguments when used by others

I think people do. But what people can also do is appeal or question legal decisions, if they believe them unfair or stupid. This is why Abu Hamza was forcibly extradited to USA and will die in an American Supermax, and Shoreham Council's signs saying motorhome parking is not permitted, can be ignored.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Nor would I, so thanks for your contribution Tea bag, but not particularly helpful on this occasion.

I’m trying to retrace the incident. I’m sure that it was in East Sussex, and the driver appealed the ticket. The Ombudsman was very clear that the signs the council were using prolifically were illegal.
lt has it has huge significance if you’ve already been ticketed and have paid up.

It has a couple of aspects to it which I’d like to bottom out.

1) the legality of it. Councils can’t just take the cash in without getting it right.

2) I’m interested in the “Motor caravan” definition. The DVLA insist that I drive a van with windows, and it is not a Motor caravan. They can’t have their cake and eat it.

I’ll enquire elsewhere,

Thanks for looking

On part 2) "Motor Caravan" , there are two definitions.
The definition that DVLA want to use for the V5, ' van with windows' etc , and a different one for the Road Traffic Act (speed limits etc).
The RTA definition is much looser and covers vehicles that most people would consider to be a MH.
Not sure what the definition is for parking. I guess the RTA one.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Maybe.



I think people do. But what people can also do is appeal or question legal decisions, if they believe them unfair or stupid. This is why Abu Hamza was forcibly extradited to USA and will die in an American Supermax, and Shoreham Council's signs saying motorhome parking is not permitted, can be ignored.

The other difference though, Hamza's extradition is definitely best for the country as a whole, the MH parking sign been thrown out isn't necessarily good.
A poster above has explained why the signs are there, as MHs in that spot are a nuisance for the residents. That's why the council put up the signs.
So, in this case it doesn't seem to be a spotty jobsworth, but an employee doing what the locals want.

 

[nicholsong]

And further, that it is not permissible to single out a particular vehicle type on any prohibition. What is permissible is to list the exceptions to any prohibition.

Thus it is not permissible to exclude motor caravans but it is permissible to exclude motor vehicles (with the exception of : mopeds, motorcycles, PSVs, invalid carriages, coaches, LGVs, HGVs, earthmovers, ……. you get the drift).

Ian

The other difference though, Hamza's extradition is definitely best for the country as a whole, the MH parking sign been thrown out isn't necessarily good.
A poster above has explained why the signs are there, as MHs in that spot are a nuisance for the residents. That's why the council put up the signs.
So, in this case it doesn't seem to be a spotty jobsworth, but an employee doing what the locals want.

Ian bigtwin could you please give the exact legal source for that as it could be useful for some of us in future.

As for 'what the locals want' that should only be possible as far as the law allows the council to do it. Some 'locals' might not like the colour of some front doors, for example, but they cannot be proscribed, unless maybe a conservation area.

As to how the council should produce signs, it is down to training their staff to do it in the way prescribed by law, not just what the 'locals' want - 'no pink cars to be parked here'?

I think a lot of locals complain about MHs assuming they belong to 'outsiders', but would not complain if they knew they belonged to neighbours. I parked my MH in the street where I own a house, but could only do it occasionally on a Visitor Permit (because too long for a Resident Permit). A resident complained and a Council Officer approached me and I explained that I owned a house in the street. Locals!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Ian bigtwin could you please give the exact legal source for that as it could be useful for some of us in future.

As for 'what the locals want' that should only be possible as far as the law allows the council to do it. Some 'locals' might not like the colour of some front doors, for example, but they cannot be proscribed, unless maybe a conservation area.

As to how the council should produce signs, it is down to training their staff to do it in the way prescribed by law, not just what the 'locals' want - 'no pink cars to be parked here'?

I think a lot of locals complain about MHs assuming they belong to 'outsiders', but would not complain if they knew they belonged to neighbours. I parked my MH in the street where I own a house, but could only do it occasionally on a Visitor Permit (because too long for a Resident Permit). A resident complained and a Council Officer approached me and I explained that I owned a house in the street. Locals!

I don't know. I'm basing that on a post from a guy who knows the area and says the ones parked in that location are a nuisance.
If they are, then the council is 'trying to do the right thing' , but has been thwarted.
The council will have to do it another way, or might not bother , the residents will have to put up with it in the meantime??

 

[TDub49]

I don't know. I'm basing that on a post from a guy who knows the area and says the ones parked in that location are a nuisance.
If they are, then the council is 'trying to do the right thing' , but has been thwarted.
The council will have to do it another way, or might not bother , the residents will have to put up with it in the meantime??

Nothing like parking and local councils to get the funsters frothing. I'm looking forward to a thread that manages to combine the aforementioned along with a CCC or CAMC rant - that would be really something.

On a slightly more serious note, as far as I can tell some under resourced and overworked council employee, responding to the direction of his/her political leaders commissioned the wrong sign. The parking restriction itself is perfectly legal but the sign isn't and therefore grounds to appeal. All they need to do is put up a generic sign saying no parking overnight and it's problem solved.

 

[bigtwin]

I attach Mr Barfoot’s findings dismissing the tickets on the basis that the signs are not permitted by the Traffic signs regulations and general directions 2016, and therefore cannot restrict motorhome parking.

I attach a copy of the full adjudication.

View attachment 687192

Ian @bigtwin could you please give the exact legal source for that as it could be useful for some of us in future.

See the details in the adjudication posted earlier. I agree, that it’s a most useful piece of information.

Ian