Parking Banned on Private Land?

spen666

(Edited to remove copyrighted material taken from the link below - Admin)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8388077.stm

downfader

I'm lost for words on that. :?

sirmy

The judge seems to have ruled that the Dr has dedicated the land as a right of way. But surely he's wrong in his interpretation of the law - the land covered by a highway is vested with the highways authority (one of those terms only lawers understand) not owned by them

However bringing in Mr Heron - if he's daft enough to pay him it's his loss as if he thinks this makes people liable to fines for parking in their own drives then he hasn't understood what was happening

Mr_Cellophane

You need to look at the street layout before making comments. Apparently Westminster aren't so fussy on their part of Cleveland Street

Mr_Cellophane

Or the Google Street View which shows the free motorbike parking

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en-GB& ... 7,,0,10.04

sirmy

Don't quite get the substance of your post Mr_Cellophane.

According to the BBC the Dr owns the land on which he parks his scooter. I am assuming this is the grey part of the path (private land is often marked out in different colours or by the placing of pin kerbs). In this case it appears that standard kerbs and grey bitmac instead of flags have been used. The scooter would, again presumably, be fastened to the stainless steel hoop.

From the comments of the judge, reported as ruling that the Dr only owns the subsoil, the implication is that the landowner has been deemed to have dedicated that piece of the path for use by the public - that he has allowed a highway, in this case it would have to be a public footpath rather than carriage way, to become established. It is an offence to obstruct a highway. Whether obstruction of a PFP can be penalised by a parking ticket is one for the lawyers.

Non of this relies on any knowledge of the layout of the street.

However having seen the street in question it does make the Dr's and Mr Heron's comments on the implications of the ruling all the more silly and irelevant (presumably the Dr's sign is the one hidden behind the potted plant (on google earth))

Mr_Cellophane

What is interesting is the 2 bikes chained to the railings which are obstructing the footpath and none of the other buildings in the road have frontages which could be walked on. The Dr's building is obviously newer and maybe there was some clause when planning consent was granted.

The Chingford Skinhead

If Sirmy is right and the scooter is chained to the metal hoop then I'd image the council's action may be as a result of the bike obstructing the ramp to the surgery as it would be in the way for both wheelchair users and people with pushchairs. Given that there is motorcycle parking down the road then you can see their point.

Sirius631

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

You need to look at the street layout before making comments. Apparently Westminster aren't so fussy on their part of Cleveland Street

God, how do they get away without being sued for that trip hazard?

sirmy

There was a picture in one of the dailies, dont know which one ( I only saw a potocopy) but he headline said something about parking facists (edit - on one will be surprised to find it was the Daily Mail) !, which showed the scooter positioned next to the hoop (it wasn't actually visible) with the scooter (correction) paralell to the building, in a position where it must ave restricted access to the ramp. Why would a Dr install a ramp for use by disabled patients and then block it?

As for the bikes chained to the railings, they do not stick ouut inot the path and so would not be regarded as an obstruction

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232506/Why-10-000-battle-wardens-inspire-unite-parking-FASCISTS.html

But if this man really thinks this is facism he's lived a very, very sheltered and privilaged life for which he should fall to his knees and give thanks to whatever deity he prays to! Frankly he's pathetic

beverick

I can only assume that there is an 'easement' in place. I had one on my first house.

I owned a section of land to the rear of my house but it stated quite clearly in my deeds (although I can't remember the specific wording) that I couldn't deny public access to cross the land neither could I charge them for access. Similarly it stated that motor vehicles could not be used on the path and that livestock couldn't be 'driven' along it.

I also had a 'wayleave' on the front garden meaning, as I found out, that the power and water companies could route services across my garden and there was nothing I could do about it. There is one on our current house but it only refers to a 1.6m strip to the side of one garden.

You really need to read the small print on deeds.

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

What is interesting is the 2 bikes chained to the railings which are obstructing the footpath and none of the other buildings in the road have frontages which could be walked on. The Dr's building is obviously newer and maybe there was some clause when planning consent was granted.

The comment on planning consent is fair. The building owner would have needed consent to create an open space to tarmac the area and there may be note of a specific clause relating to access in the consent.

BTW, regardingt the bikes. The law requires an actual obstruction to be made before an offence is committed (ie you have to demostrate that the safe passage of others has been obstructed) and I think you could safely argue that the bikes aren't doing that as there is more than sufficient space to pass by in safety - albeit by passing onto apparently private land!

Other offences may be being committed though.

Bob

pneumatic

the bit in the article that describes the Dr as "a parking campaigner" rang an alarm bell with me. Sounds like the kind of bloke whose principles often over-ride his judgement*.

*aka a sh!t stirrer

jthef

Thank god I don't live in London with these money grabbing Bureaucrats with too much time on there hands, and with some perverse feeling of grandeur that they can take a reasonable law to the extremes so the law becomes a farce.

Northwind

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

If Sirmy is right and the scooter is chained to the metal hoop then I'd image the council's action may be as a result of the bike obstructing the ramp to the surgery as it would be in the way for both wheelchair users and people with pushchairs.

But if the bike's not there, the hoop still is, so I can't see that the bike creates an obsctruction, there's already one there surely?

The Chingford Skinhead

Northwind wrote:

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

If Sirmy is right and the scooter is chained to the metal hoop then I'd image the council's action may be as a result of the bike obstructing the ramp to the surgery as it would be in the way for both wheelchair users and people with pushchairs.

But if the bike's not there, the hoop still is, so I can't see that the bike creates an obsctruction, there's already one there surely?

It is a tight squeeze with the hoop but doable. But, if the bike is parked ramp side of the hoop then it becomes impossible to get a wheelchair or buggy through the gap.

Splottboy

SO....If someone goes onto his Private land, and breaks a leg with a dodgy conrete paving slab, then...he could say, "Sorry, I'm NOT liable, as the Council own the surface. I have been informed that, legally, I only own the subsoil !!! "

I think this would make a good case.

The judge in the parking case was an idiot, as were Camden Council.
As Charles Dickens said in one of his books, "The LAW is an ass..."

dag_on_a_bike

Splottboy wrote:

SO....If someone goes onto his Private land, and breaks a leg with a dodgy conrete paving slab, then...he could say, "Sorry, I'm NOT liable, as the Council own the surface. I have been informed that, legally, I only own the subsoil !!! "

The law is indeed quite convoluted when it comes to public rights of way, the duty to maintain etc.

A Highways Authority does not become responsible for maintainace of a public right of way. It would have to be adopted as a part of the highway.

Likewise the owner of land over whic a public right of way does not become responsible as a matter of course if a paving slab (or the surface per se) becomes defective due to nonfeasance, but may become responsible for misfeasance.

There is case law to support that position, but I would have to look it up because I can't recall the name of the case.