UK Motorhome parking Camping-Car Park may be of interest?

[GJH]

Exactly and that is what GJH said himself, never been any mention of this in his other posts.

As I said, time you went to Specsavers. It has been part of my posts for years.

 

[GJH]

If it is land to which the Act applies that may be so, but the offence is not commited by the occupants of the vehicle, but by 'The occupier' of the land. See Section 1 of the Act.

The whole purpose of the Act is to prevent Owners/Occupiers of land from setting up unlicensed campsites. It is not aimed at the occupants of the vehicles. In the Act I can find no reference to such occupants of caravans.

Therefore, even if by stationing 'the caravan on the land concerned' ...'that land becomes a caravan site', as you allege, there is no offence commited by the occupants of the 'caravan' under that Act.

Using a definition which applies only to Part I of the Act in any other circumstances is irrelevant.

Geoff

If it is land to which the Act applies that may be so, but the offence is not commited by the occupants of the vehicle but by 'The occupier' of the land. See Setion 1 of the Act

Nobody ever claimed that the offence is other than that of the occupier who permits use of the land. That is why my article, written several years ago, gives the examples of pub landlord and farmer. However, unless the motorhomers in question obtain permission to camp they would be trespassing. Is anyone suggesting that it is OK for people to trespass simply to satisfy their own selfishness to camp wherever they like?

The point is, though, irrelevant to the subject of the thread. If Camping-Car Park were to set up any of their sites in this country it would be a formal arrangement and the permission of the landowner would necessarily be obtained.

 

[Barclaybasher]

It may be irrelevant to the thread but it would seem that the Act actually allows sleeping in a caravan or MH in a legally parked vehicle unless specifically prohibited - not just on a campsite

 

[GJH]

It may be irrelevant to the thread but it would seem that the Act actually allows sleeping in a caravan or MH in a legally parked vehicle unless specifically prohibited - not just on a campsite

As previously mentioned, there are two sets of legislation to take into account.
If the land in question is a highway there is no national legislation preventing occasional sleeping. I established that with the DfT in 2009, see Here. As the article points out, however, there may be local orders in place and long term occupancy can be prosecuted.
If the land in question is off road than the 1960 Act applies. Any camping must have the permission of the occupier of the land or a trespass is committed - and no responsible motorhomer would commit a trespass would they?

 

[NorthernSoul]

I don't see any possibility of the existing laws relating to Caravans and Motorhomes being changed in a positive way for Motorhomers. If laws are changed at all they are more likely to be amended to tighten restrictions.

2020 has been a PR disaster for motorhomers. Some members of the General Public are against motorhomes parking or stopping overnight in their towns and villages, and a minority of motorhomers have given them the ammunition they need to seek further restrictions. Do the General Public really care about the difference between parking and camping? the difference between black waste and grey waste? the difference between a campsite and an aire?, who really left the litter in the car park by the half a dozen motorhomes? etc.

The negative narrative around motorhomes is what needs to be changed and that won't happen by motorhomers looking for loopholes in the law so that they can exercise their 'rights'.

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

 

[PeteH]

and as far as the main clubs go they are not be all and end all.

Unfortunately, when such subject are raised they become "consultants".

Has anyone ever had a ticket for sleeping in their van ?

Doubtful, and where it may have happened it will have been under a L-A TRO. not central Govt;

One thing I used to ask in other threads but never got a real answer apart from references to the law, what is the difference between parking your car or motorhome all night in a car park on its own, or you sleeping in it?
How the hell is that camping?

TBF, it isn`t. If it was every Lorry driver in a Yard would be camping too. It`s a definition thought up by law writers.

Wasn't the Act brought in because Caravans were being used as permanent accommodation ?

In a nutshell, yes. Post war a lot of people where living ad-hoc in "Camping Units". Including Ex Railway carriages and redundant Trams. My Mate`s family lived in one whilst he was waiting for RAF accommodation circa 1960.

To put the 1960 Act into context :

Motorhomes as we know them did not exist in 1960

Winnebago produced their first in 1966

Eriba-Hymer produced their first hand built MH in 1961 - serious production of Hymers did not start until the 70's

The 1960 Act wasn't meant for us....

Sadly, not true, what was allegedly the first, went under the hammer recently and was very much pre- WW2. Used to be on display in a Garage near Poole. Lots of other "conversions" too. "Mass" production started pre 1960 with conversions of the older popular vans and the odd Ambulance.

 

[Theonlysue]

Having spoken to many european motorhomers, they don't visit uk as everything is money here.
And it makes a visit very expensive.
Hopefully, if this gets set up, it will provide cheaper camping to encourage foreign tourists here.

 

[chaser]

Having spoken to many european motorhomers, they don't visit uk as everything is money here.
And it makes a visit very expensive.
Hopefully, if this gets set up, it will provide cheaper camping to encourage foreign tourists here.

In my experience, the French don't use the CCP things there so don't see why they would come here to use them.

 

[jongood]

Having spoken to many european motorhomers, they don't visit uk as everything is money here.
And it makes a visit very expensive.
Hopefully, if this gets set up, it will provide cheaper camping to encourage foreign tourists here.

This is a good point but I also find many of them confess to not fancying driving on (to them) the wrong side of the road.

I don't think there is too much point squabbling out the caravan act. AFAICS Local authorities could easily accommodate it if they wanted to as some have, Torridge, Powys, some of the Yorkshires and notably Canterbury. I think the best way forward is to keep a steady pressure up on our LA's which is what Campra and CCP are about.

 

[Stroppy Bird]

In my experience, the French don't use the CCP things there so don't see why they would come here to use them.

Several french vans were on the one we stayed at last year.

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

 

[Ivory55]

Having spoken to many european motorhomers, they don't visit uk as everything is money here.
And it makes a visit very expensive.
Hopefully, if this gets set up, it will provide cheaper camping to encourage foreign tourists here.

What about the sunshine ? Haha

 

[jongood]

In my experience, the French don't use the CCP things there so don't see why they would come here to use them.

How is it a success in France then?

I've never counted but would guess that the majority of the MH's on the ones we ve visited have been French. They are - like us - not all tight

 

[Barclaybasher]

the article points out, however, there may be local orders in place and long term occupancy can be prosecuted.
If the land in question is off road than the 1960 Act applies. Any camping must have the permission of the occupier of the land or a trespass is committed - and no responsible motorhomer would commit a trespass would they?

I was thinking more about being legally parked in a car park (fee paid).....

 

[Littlewheels]

Thinking CCP it occurs to me that that there are already a great many locations that are waiting for CCP to come along and these are the CL’s of which there are many all over the country.
Many CL’s are in locations that would suit a CCP operation,not all are miles from facilities and many already have infrastructure they have hard standing,service points, EHU and could take so many more Motorhomes than the restrictions by CMC allow.
If l were CCP l would be collating such information and assisting the CL owners in obtaining necessary permissions.

 

[emjaiuk]

Several french vans were on the one we stayed at last year.

Wishful thinking? In our experience, although used a lot by other European nationalities, the French are usually in the majority.

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

 

[GJH]

I was thinking more about being legally parked in a car park (fee paid).....

A car park is subject to the requirements of the 1960 Act so the car park owner has to have a site licence or exemption to legally allow camping (rather than just parking and leaving an empty vehicle overnight).
Most local authority parking TROs and private company terms of contract either ban parking overnight or ban acts of habitation (often documented as sleeping, cooking, washing &c). That being the case then legal camping would not be possible, fee or not.
If a car park (generally LA rather than privately owned) does not have an associated order then legally anyone parking would have to obtain permission or they would be trespassing. The two on the coast between Redcar & Marske spring to mind. They were regularly featured in "wild camping" guides even though the council discouraged it. Eventually the council extended its TRO to cover the car parks because it had become too much of a nuisance.

 

[nicholsong]

A car park is subject to the requirements of the 1960 Act so the car park owner has to have a site licence or exemption to legally allow camping (rather than just parking and leaving an empty vehicle overnight).
Most local authority parking TROs and private company terms of contract either ban parking overnight or ban acts of habitation (often documented as sleeping, cooking, washing &c). That being the case then legal camping would not be possible, fee or not.
If a car park (generally LA rather than privately owned) does not have an associated order then legally anyone parking would have to obtain permission or they would be trespassing. The two on the coast between Redcar & Marske spring to mind. They were regularly featured in "wild camping" guides even though the council discouraged it. Eventually the council extended its TRO to cover the car parks because it had become too much of a nuisance.

I Have written elsewhere that in my opinion the Primary Legislation which enables LAs to issue TROs only permits them to control vehicles as to where and when they may go and park, but nowhere addresses the LA's authority to control the activities of the occupants of those vehicles.

In that respect I consider the TROs which purport to do that are made Ultra Vires(outwith their power) and as such are unenforcable. I can find no binding cases where this point has be adjudicated on.

Geoff

 

[PeteH]

I Have written elsewhere that in my opinion the Primary Legislation which enables LAs to issue TROs only permits them to control vehicles as to where and when they may go and park, but nowhere addresses the LA's authority to control the activities of the occupants of those vehicles.

In that respect I consider the TROs which purport to do that are made Ultra Vires(outwith their power) and as such are unenforcable. I can find no binding cases where this point has be adjudicated on.

Geoff

You won`t. because AFAIK, it has never been tested in a Court. Those issued with "penalties" 99% of the time, do not contest them. It`s a bit like "A" frames, The only one I ever heard about, (One of the R-V dealers, Towing to a Show?) was declined to prosecute by the Crown Prosecution service.

 

[nicholsong]

You won`t. because AFAIK, it has never been tested in a Court. Those issued with "penalties" 99% of the time, do not contest them. It`s a bit like "A" frames, The only one I ever heard about, (One of the R-V dealers, Towing to a Show?) was declined to prosecute by the Crown Prosecution service.

And if those issued with penalties contest it with a good argument, which I believe mine would be, then probably the LA would drop it, rather than have to pay for good legal advice. Especially if they knew I could run my own case at no cost.

Geoff

 

[Littlewheels]

In my experience, the French don't use the CCP things there so don't see why they would come here to use them.

I have been on four CCP Aires over a couple of weeks and all bar me were French. Additionally they were all at about 90% capacity full.

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

 

[Barclaybasher]

A car park is subject to the requirements of the 1960 Act so the car park owner has to have a site licence or exemption to legally allow camping (rather than just parking and leaving an empty vehicle overnight).
Most local authority parking TROs and private company terms of contract either ban parking overnight or ban acts of habitation (often documented as sleeping, cooking, washing &c). That being the case then legal camping would not be possible, fee or not.
If a car park (generally LA rather than privately owned) does not have an associated order then legally anyone parking would have to obtain permission or they would be trespassing. The two on the coast between Redcar & Marske spring to mind. They were regularly featured in "wild camping" guides even though the council discouraged it. Eventually the council extended its TRO to cover the car parks because it had become too much of a nuisance.

Sorry Graham, if I park a vehicle and pay the required fee I cannot be trespassing.

The Act itself allows overnight stays .... so, by default excuses the landowner from prosecution

As nicholsong says the TROs refer to vehicles not their use..

 

[martin2603]

Well I have completed the survey, I have a lifetime Passe Etaps and would wish them success in this venture. I don’t expect to park for free but it is nice to get a freebie now and again I can’t deny it. Good luck CCP!

 

[GJH]

I Have written elsewhere that in my opinion the Primary Legislation which enables LAs to issue TROs only permits them to control vehicles as to where and when they may go and park, but nowhere addresses the LA's authority to control the activities of the occupants of those vehicles.

In that respect I consider the TROs which purport to do that are made Ultra Vires(outwith their power) and as such are unenforcable. I can find no binding cases where this point has be adjudicated on.

Geoff

As pointed out at the time, it would appear that you have misread/misunderstood S35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Please look again at S35(1)
"provided under any letting or arrangements made by a local authority under section 33(4) of this Act,
the local authority, subject to Parts I to III of Schedule 9 to this Act, may by order make provision as to—
(i)the use of the parking place, and in particular the vehicles or class of vehicles which may be entitled to use it,
(ii)the conditions on which it may be used,
(iii)the charges to be paid in connection with its use (where it is an off-street one), and
(iv)the removal from it of a vehicle left there in contravention of the order and the safe custody of the vehicle".

It may be worth undertaking some study in to how to read and interpret statute law before coming to conclusions as to what it means. It does help

 

[GJH]

Sorry Graham, if I park a vehicle and pay the required fee I cannot be trespassing.

The Act itself allows overnight stays .... so, by default excuses the landowner from prosecution

As nicholsong says the TROs refer to vehicles not their use..

The fee allows you to leave the vehicle subject to the conditions of use and nothing else.
As I have pointed out above (for the second time in a matter of days) S35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 means that TROs do include conditions of use.
Maybe you and Geoff could save money by sharing the course fees for how to read and understand statutes

 

[Barclaybasher]

As pointed out at the time, it would appear that you have misread/misunderstood S35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Please look again at S35(b)(ii):
"provided under any letting or arrangements made by a local authority under section 33(4) of this Act,
the local authority, subject to Parts I to III of Schedule 9 to this Act, may by order make provision as to—
(i)the use of the parking place, and in particular the vehicles or class of vehicles which may be entitled to use it,
(ii)the conditions on which it may be used,
(iii)the charges to be paid in connection with its use (where it is an off-street one), and
(iv)the removal from it of a vehicle left there in contravention of the order and the safe custody of the vehicle".

It may be worth undertaking some study in to how to read and interpret statute law before coming to conclusions as to what it means. It does help

My van is taxed, MOT'd and insured and parked in the street - I sleep overnight in the van.

What law have I broken ?

The Act clearly allows sleeping for holidaymakers albeit in limited numbers and days.

Unless there is a clealy signed prohibition can you be prosecuted for any parking offence ?

.

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

 

[chaser]

The fee allows you to leave the vehicle subject to the conditions of use and nothing else.
As I have pointed out above (for the second time in a matter of days) S35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 means that TROs do include conditions of use.
Maybe you and Geoff could save money by sharing the course fees for how to read and understand statutes

If laws were made so that people could understand them there would be no need to study law.
It's come to something if you have got to study law at university before you can park a car/ MH.

 

[nicholsong]

As pointed out at the time, it would appear that you have misread/misunderstood S35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Please look again at S35(1)
"provided under any letting or arrangements made by a local authority under section 33(4) of this Act,
the local authority, subject to Parts I to III of Schedule 9 to this Act, may by order make provision as to—
(i)the use of the parking place, and in particular the vehicles or class of vehicles which may be entitled to use it,
(ii)the conditions on which it may be used,
(iii)the charges to be paid in connection with its use (where it is an off-street one), and
(iv)the removal from it of a vehicle left there in contravention of the order and the safe custody of the vehicle".

It may be worth undertaking some study in to how to read and interpret statute law before coming to conclusions as to what it means. It does help

Graham

I consider that in S. 35(1) (ii) 'conditions' should be read sui generis with in particular S. 35(1) (i) ''the vehicles or class of vehicles' and further should be considered sui generis with the provisions of the Act in general in respect of vehicles.


With reference to your comment

"It may be worth undertaking some study in to how to read and interpret statute law before coming to conclusions as to what it means. It does help"

I suggest you check people's qualifications before such comment, and in this case I invite you to withdraw it.

Geoff

 

[Speve]

What an interesting thread this has turned out to be? Especially with the legal eagles of the forum Having their input and prospective on the details,
Thanks for everyone’s input and thoughts

 

[Speve]

Just noticed I put prospective instead of perspective sorry

 

[Vipar]

Geoff you will be getting a call from me if I get nicked.

“ Your the Man”

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