Private road and parking issues

[tvrgit]

surveyor said:

TVR

You troll BV's posts, then get all uppity when BV points out what he does for a living. Instead of getting unpleasantly aggressive how about posting your credentials. Then we'll have a clue as to whether your advice is worth listening to or not.

BV is a number of 'proper' Experts who helps out of his own time and will, Your attacks put others off and make this a less valuable part of the forum.

I'm not "trolling" anyone. I am merely pointing out that there are more possibilities than those espoused by your learned friend. Those may be an inconvenience to the argument, but there are.

People can make their own choice. It's no skin off my nose if strangers want to follow advice they receive on the internet.

I have never set out my credentials on here, but here's a brief summary.

I am not a lawyer, but I became involved in roads and traffic after I graduated in 1978. I worked in a local authority on matters such as traffic regulation, road adoption and maintenance (including the thorny issue of "who is responsible for private roads", by the way). I became a chartered engineer and some years later, went over to private consultancy and became a director of that company, giving advice to a range of public sector and private sector clients not just on traffic, but on things like speed limits, parking and again, road adoption and maintenance. I now run my own small consultancy, which is building on reputation, and doing very well, considering that I don't apparently have a clue what I am doing.

I have appeared as an expert witness at over 200 public local inquiries, and I have been cross-examined by solicitors and QCs. Most of them are jolly fine fellows. Occasionally you get one who is keen to make an impression, and sometimes they do, but not necessarily in the way they intended.

I have therefore had to "get my st together" on all of this. I am aware of the law, but am far more familiar with how all of this is put into practice. For example, in my experience, it would be more usual for a "road" to have a public right of access, than not. There is a possibility, as BV rightly points out, that the public right of access might be restricted for some roads, but again in my experience, you should never take either position for granted, and I am merely suggesting some caution before deciding that "you own the road so you can probably do what you like" (it wasn't BV who said that). That is a non-sequitur. So is "it's a cul-de-sac so there is unlikely to be a public right of access". All in my limited 37 years experience, of course.

You make an interesting point about "experts" being put off by - oh what was the word again - oh yes "tosh". That's very true. The forum has been devalued significantly by the absence of a large number of former posters, including police officers, who just got fed up with ill-informed grief and personal attacks.

I certainly did not intend to launch any personal attack on BV - I have been aware for some time of his profession, I have read his posts and mostly, agree with what he says, and I do think that his presence is an asset to this forum. I have no reason to personally attack.If it has come across as trolling, then I apologise unreservedly. However, I was not the one who dismissed "a load of old tosh" or suggested he was a pub lawyer, which in my view, was completely unnecessary. I have tried to be polite and respectful until that last post, which you have selected and quoted.

I am not arrogant enough to say that I am always right - but this time, I probably am, IF there is a public right of access. BV is also probably right IF there is no public right of access. Neither of us really know whether there is or not. I just wouldn't like anybody to leap to conclusions, but to see both sides and both possibilities.

[tvrgit]

surveyor said:

As an aside - I think this very helpfully sums up the highway issue which BV and TVR seem to be at odds on. http://www.ashworths-solicitors.co.uk/news/private...

I think that's a fair summary, and also covers some of the other posters' comments on what happened when somebody tried to lay services along their private road (an absolute nightmare for developers - I was advising some residents in Shropshire about this, because whether the council granted planning for a new house, or not, the residents effectively had a "veto" over running new services along the unadopted road, into the new plot).

First step is to ascertain if it is a "highway" as defined - i.e. if there is a right of public access over it.

[Sump]

From a long list of past experience, I bluntly assume anyone who is a chartered engineer just to be full of st in general.

[superlightr]

any google maps link it to us so we can see this prime parking area?

[FiF]

Sump said:

From a long list of past experience, I bluntly assume anyone who is a chartered engineer just to be full of st in general.

On the other hand having watched a thread where MrrT (iirc) accused BV of not knowing anything about the law, seeing BV blatantly blustering that tvr was just someone who gets their stuff from Google and peepipoo was just car crash Internet. Highly amusing.

This will be the only post of yours I'll answer. Some people might call you a bad word beginning with the third letter of the English alphabet, but that would be both inaccurate and inappropriate as you have neither the depth nor the warmth.

[surveyor]

tvrgit said:

surveyor said:

TVR

You troll BV's posts, then get all uppity when BV points out what he does for a living. Instead of getting unpleasantly aggressive how about posting your credentials. Then we'll have a clue as to whether your advice is worth listening to or not.

BV is a number of 'proper' Experts who helps out of his own time and will, Your attacks put others off and make this a less valuable part of the forum.

I'm not "trolling" anyone. I am merely pointing out that there are more possibilities than those espoused by your learned friend. Those may be an inconvenience to the argument, but there are.

People can make their own choice. It's no skin off my nose if strangers want to follow advice they receive on the internet.

I have never set out my credentials on here, but here's a brief summary.

I am not a lawyer, but I became involved in roads and traffic after I graduated in 1978. I worked in a local authority on matters such as traffic regulation, road adoption and maintenance (including the thorny issue of "who is responsible for private roads", by the way). I became a chartered engineer and some years later, went over to private consultancy and became a director of that company, giving advice to a range of public sector and private sector clients not just on traffic, but on things like speed limits, parking and again, road adoption and maintenance. I now run my own small consultancy, which is building on reputation, and doing very well, considering that I don't apparently have a clue what I am doing.

I have appeared as an expert witness at over 200 public local inquiries, and I have been cross-examined by solicitors and QCs. Most of them are jolly fine fellows. Occasionally you get one who is keen to make an impression, and sometimes they do, but not necessarily in the way they intended.

I have therefore had to "get my st together" on all of this. I am aware of the law, but am far more familiar with how all of this is put into practice. For example, in my experience, it would be more usual for a "road" to have a public right of access, than not. There is a possibility, as BV rightly points out, that the public right of access might be restricted for some roads, but again in my experience, you should never take either position for granted, and I am merely suggesting some caution before deciding that "you own the road so you can probably do what you like" (it wasn't BV who said that). That is a non-sequitur. So is "it's a cul-de-sac so there is unlikely to be a public right of access". All in my limited 37 years experience, of course.

You make an interesting point about "experts" being put off by - oh what was the word again - oh yes "tosh". That's very true. The forum has been devalued significantly by the absence of a large number of former posters, including police officers, who just got fed up with ill-informed grief and personal attacks.

I certainly did not intend to launch any personal attack on BV - I have been aware for some time of his profession, I have read his posts and mostly, agree with what he says, and I do think that his presence is an asset to this forum. I have no reason to personally attack.If it has come across as trolling, then I apologise unreservedly. However, I was not the one who dismissed "a load of old tosh" or suggested he was a pub lawyer, which in my view, was completely unnecessary. I have tried to be polite and respectful until that last post, which you have selected and quoted.

I am not arrogant enough to say that I am always right - but this time, I probably am, IF there is a public right of access. BV is also probably right IF there is no public right of access. Neither of us really know whether there is or not. I just wouldn't like anybody to leap to conclusions, but to see both sides and both possibilities.

TVR - thankyou and apologies for the doubt.. You clearly do have some expertise in this area, and to be fair that's not something I had realised. It does kind of go on to prove my point in the linked thread. Unless it's someone's background who is well known on the forum It can be hard to work out what is bluster and what is knowledge amongst other well-meaning but not so helpful posts.

[johnwilliams77]

Granfondo said:

Dog st under the door handles would be rather unpleasant!

This

[tvrgit]

Sump said:

From a long list of past experience, I bluntly assume anyone who is a chartered engineer just to be full of st in general.

From a fairly limited experience of sewage pump design, I would expect the contents of a sump to be similar. Assumptions, eh? Tsk.

[AW111]

Why feed the troll?
It has a habit of posting insulting comments on most of the threads I have seen it on, and you are just feeding its craving for attention.

[Joeguard1990]

Breadvan72 said:

I think that an attitude like that is what is called "being part of the problem". Joeguard, is it OK for us all to park on your driveway, if you have one? Did you miss the bit about the road being a private road?

No of course not, but they are not parking on his driveway are they. For all we know the cars are parked legally, it still hasn't been properly established by the OP yet. As I said, fair enough if they are actually blocking you in because that's a different story.

[surveyor_101]

Joeguard1990 said:

No of course not, but they are not parking on his driveway are they. For all we know the cars are parked legally, it still hasn't been properly established by the OP yet. As I said, fair enough if they are actually blocking you in because that's a different story.

Other than one incident the cars are not blocking driveways fully but parking opposite and causing issues for many of the residents.

Today we have 8 and several residents have and not been able to park when returning home.

Since all the other streets are resident zones not sure where people think they will park.

We have new cars today and other than one repeat offender who I have placed a keeper details form copy filled in, and it was gone by 12:30

[Greendubber]

surveyor_101 said:

Other than one incident the cars are not blocking driveways fully but parking opposite and causing issues for many of the residents.

Today we have 8 and several residents have and not been able to park when returning home.

Since all the other streets are resident zones not sure where people think they will park.

We have new cars today and other than one repeat offender who I have placed a keeper details form copy filled in, and it was gone by 12:30

Where couldnt the residents park, outside their houses on the road?

[ajcj]

Interesting thread, not least for the illustration of how difficult it is to get a clear view of the legal principles. As a slight sidetrack, would anyone know the answer to the following?

If you do own a private road, is there any way of finding out who has a right of way over it?

[surveyor_101]

Greendubber said:

Where couldnt the residents park, outside their houses on the road?

In the road all available space outside peoples houses and drives was gone.

The near by roads are permit holders only or double yellow.

A lady down the road has already reversed off her drive and hit an awkwardly parked car opposite her drive and had to pay for the damage/insurance.

This is after she asked the driver if they could park further up or down so she wasn't bang slap opposite her drive.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 2nd December 14:41

Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 2nd December 14:41

Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 2nd December 14:43

[Swervin_Mervin]

ajcj said:

Interesting thread, not least for the illustration of how difficult it is to get a clear view of the legal principles. As a slight sidetrack, would anyone know the answer to the following?

If you do own a private road, is there any way of finding out who has a right of way over it?

First stop would be to check the Title Register to see if one is specifically identified.

Then beyond that there are rights that have been acquired over time - I'll leave that there though as I ave no desire to get into Tvrgit/Bv's love-in

[anonymous-user]

I got fed up with tvrgit because in almost every post he says, emphatically "you are wrong", or "that's incorrect", without, it appears, having read the post he is slagging off. I had to remind tvrgit earlier on that his blanket statements based on his reading of the relevant legislation without reference to the relevant House of Lords case mis-stated the legal test. Amateur lawyers are always welcome, but not when they (a) ignore case law, (b) ignore what people actually say, and (c) just go around saying "everyone is wrong and only I am right".

The OP tells us that he lives in a cul de sac which is owned by one householder. More often than not, that will be a road to which the public have no LEGAL right of access, even if they can in fact access it. If that is the case, the owner can take steps to control use of the road by people who do not live on it. Those who live on it will likely have easements, which give them legal rights to use it. Others who use the road without permission may be trespassing.

When people gripe about other parking outside their houses the usual answer is tough luck, but we are not dealing here with the usual "I live on any old road and people park there". It seems that some are so zealous for the claimed right of the motorist to do anything that he or she likes (because motorist) that they cannot see that others may have property rights that preclude this.

[Roo]

That ^^^ sounds exactly like my scenario that you answered earlier.

Fortunately we don't have problems with people parking in our road, it's too narrow, but parents of pupils at the local academy use it as a drop off/pick up/turn round point.

[Greendubber]

Breadvan72 said:

I got fed up with tvrgit because in almost every post he says, emphatically "you are wrong", or "that's incorrect", without, it appears, having read the post he is slagging off. I had to remind tvrgit earlier on that his blanket statements based on his reading of the relevant legislation without reference to the relevant House of Lords case mis-stated the legal test. Amateur lawyers are always welcome, but not when they (a) ignore case law, (b) ignore what people actually say, and (c) just go around saying "everyone is wrong and only I am right".

The OP tells us that he lives in a cul de sac which is owned by one householder. More often than not, that will be a road to which the public have no LEGAL right of access, even if they can in fact access it. If that is the case, the owner can take steps to control use of the road by people who do not live on it. Those who live on it will likely have easements, which give them legal rights to use it. Others who use the road without permission may be trespassing.

When people gripe about other parking outside their houses the usual answer is tough luck, but we are not dealing here with the usual "I live on any old road and people park there". It seems that some are so zealous for the claimed right of the motorist to do anything that he or she likes (because motorist) that they cannot see that others may have property rights that preclude this.

And its just as likely that people can park there based on the lack of info from the OP.

[Joeguard1990]

Okay lets just pretend for a minute that the road isn't private and the people are parking there legally.
The OP's main gripe is basically that these people are taking up all the spaces along the road and parking opposite driveways.
If this was the case, then unless you have a car with the driveway, unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about this, hence my post about living somewhere where parking is limited and people who work nearby need the spaces also.
If your neighbor can't reverse out of her drive without hitting a legally parked car opposite then that's her problem.

If however as BreadVan72 points out that the road is indeed private, and this needs to be established first, then you have actions you can take.

[surveyor_101]

Joeguard1990 said:

Okay lets just pretend for a minute that the road isn't private and the people are parking there legally.
The OP's main gripe is basically that these people are taking up all the spaces along the road and parking opposite driveways.
If this was the case, then unless you have a car with the driveway, unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about this, hence my post about living somewhere where parking is limited and people who work nearby need the spaces also.
If your neighbor can't reverse out of her drive without hitting a legally parked car opposite then that's her problem.

If however as BreadVan72 points out that the road is indeed private, and this needs to be established first, then you have actions you can take.

So if you live in a road that is barely 5 metres wide and commuters park bag slap opposite your families (mum, gran) drive your answer if you can't reserve out tuff don't go out in your car. Not the person parking opposite your drives problem don't tell the to park elsewhere.

In most cases there are other places in the road that don't cause this issue as well.

Must be a pro commuter parker