You do NOT own the parking space outside your residence.

[saaby93]

sutts said:

I do - I own the pavement and the road in front of my house and garden, up to the fence line on the other side of the road.

It's a private/unadopted road about 50 metres long. The downside to that is my neighbours and I are responsible for the upkeep, and a couple of years we got together and paid for the road to be properly resurfaced (about £1200 each).

Understandably (I hope), I am now quite picky about who can park on my property and am happy to politely shift those that attempt to do so without permission.

Minefield here
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 16th February 21:25

[sutts]

No doubt, although I haven't had a problem in 15 years living here. Fortunately the road doesn't really go anywhere past the last house in the row and has been unadopted for 90 years.

[poing]

Welshbeef said:

Mr_Yogi said:

You do what an old neighbor of my Mrs did; hook up a tow rope to your Unimog and drag the offending car down the road

Not if blocked in you don't!

2 trolly jacks, some beer and then car will magically end up at the nearest bus stop where it will be removed by the local authority. I'm guessing.

[matthias73]

Chainsaw Rebuild said:

I'm with the OP - I can't stand people being territorial over parking. Yes it would be nice to always have a space reserved outside the house, but that's not how it is and that's that. In my Uni house in Leicester I remember you were doing well if you could park in your street! no one was silly about it.

I hate you with the passion of a thousand crying Italian shoemakers burning in the molten depths of mount Etna.

I can't even remember which bloody road it's parked on right now.

[Storer]

Roads are not for parking on, other than for short periods. They were designed to allow horses and horse & carts to move from place to place. Horses were never stabled on the road!
Somehow it has become acceptable to see the public highway/thoroughfare as somewhere acceptable to park, especially outside a car owner's home.

Why the hell should it be free to 'keep' your car on the road. If your house has no off road parking then you should have to prove you have somewhere off-road you can leave your car when not being used before you can buy/RFL it.

I know this will not be a popular point of view but on road parking is part of the problem with congestion in towns.

Roads are highways for movement. Not free (or paid for) car parks.

[M-SportMatt]

saaby93 said:

M-SportMatt said:

There is nothing against any law to prevent me parking overnight outside my neighbour's house if i'm not causing an obstruction.

Doh!
If there's no obstruction then the law we're talking about doesn't come into play
But if you look in page 8 of that gov paper you posted
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
you'll see some case law about other people who thought they weren't causing an obstruction. There's only a page of it there.
You've got a few things for and against
First up if you've parked in the road and no one minds then who's to know about it?
You'll have to park in a place that's annoying someone for it to go further
then you have discretion
The police dont take everyone to court for every misdemeanour
they can either explain to the people complaining it's not really an obstruction and possibly better things to do
or they'll speak to the person (allegedly) causing an instruction asking them to move it
Thats usually enough for it to move and we wont hear any more
If it doesnt and the obstruction is thought serious enough the vehicle gets towed - as you saw in the previous PH link
Otherwise it goes before the mags and they have to decide whether or not they think its unlawful

Then it can go to a higher court and you see the case law

Now if you are parking outside your neighbours and causing an obstruction, when you could be parking somewhere else ........

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 16th February 21:24

You are trolling and retarded

You don't understand the legal definition of obstruction

If I park outside my neighbors house in a legitimate space, regardless of where else I can park there is no law, no coppers discretion or any other made up bullst Jedi force that can force me to move it and I sure as hell wouldn't end up in court.

You are on crack if you think otherwise, either post the case law or shut up, you have had your chance and keep failing to deliver any information to back up your fantasy claims but are arguing for arguing sake.

If there is no obstruction it is legal. End of

[Alucidnation]

Storer said:

Roads are not for parking on, other than for short periods. They were designed to allow horses and horse & carts to move from place to place. Horses were never stabled on the road!
Somehow it has become acceptable to see the public highway/thoroughfare as somewhere acceptable to park, especially outside a car owner's home.

Why the hell should it be free to 'keep' your car on the road. If your house has no off road parking then you should have to prove you have somewhere off-road you can leave your car when not being used before you can buy/RFL it.

I know this will not be a popular point of view but on road parking is part of the problem with congestion in towns.

Roads are highways for movement. Not free (or paid for) car parks.

[saaby93]

Storer said:

Roads are not for parking on, other than for short periods. They were designed to allow horses and horse & carts to move from place to place. Horses were never stabled on the road!
Somehow it has become acceptable to see the public highway/thoroughfare as somewhere acceptable to park, especially outside a car owner's home.

Why the hell should it be free to 'keep' your car on the road. If your house has no off road parking then you should have to prove you have somewhere off-road you can leave your car when not being used before you can buy/RFL it.

I know this will not be a popular point of view but on road parking is part of the problem with congestion in towns.

Roads are highways for movement. Not free (or paid for) car parks.

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

He's right though
The idea of roads was so you could get from one place to another. If you wanted to park something you did it off the road, not try to use that nice convenient surface
It's still there and can still be enforced from time to time

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

You are trolling and retarded

You don't understand the legal definition of obstruction

If I park outside my neighbors house in a legitimate space, regardless of where else I can park there is no law, no coppers discretion or any other made up bullst Jedi force that can force me to move it and I sure as hell wouldn't end up in court.

You are on crack if you think otherwise, either post the case law or shut up, you have had your chance and keep failing to deliver any information to back up your fantasy claims but are arguing for arguing sake.

If there is no obstruction it is legal. End of

Name calling wont help your case but as you say at the end if there is no obstruction it is legal
What we're talking about is where there is obstruction and specifically unnecessary obstruction
You've provided some of the case law - Ive highlighted it for you
If you want to close your eyes and say the indicated sections of law don't exist that's your prerogative
Last time I looked the world was still round

Here we go - your link ( theyre examples to show where it can go either way)

sn1170 said:

Obstruction can be caused by actual physical obstruction of an essential line of traffic … or it may be unreasonable use of the right of stopping even though there is plenty of room for other traffic to pass

While there is obviously an offence if there is a serious obstruction in fact, unreasonable use of the highway calculated to obstruct and whereby persons might be obstructed may suffice for a conviction without evidence that anyone has actually been obstructed (Gill v Carson(1917) 81 J.P. 250, a case under the Town and Police Clauses Act 1848, s.28).

In Nagy v Weston [1965] 1 All E.R. 78 parking a van for five minutes in a wide, busy street near a bus stop and refusing to move was held to be an obstruction under what is now s.137 of the Highways Act 1980

It was again emphasised in Wade v Grange (1977) R.T.R. 417 that what amounts to obstruction is primarily a question of fact and that the Divisional Court is only concerned with correcting mistaken applications of the law

Whether particular facts amount to an unreasonable use would depend very much on the magistrates’ local knowledge of the importance of the particular road; a long stay may not be out of order in a quiet residential side road, but it would be otherwise in a busy shopping street. An obstruction only comes into existence if there is an unreasonable use of the right of stopping (Nagy v Weston above), and it is a matter of degree (Dunn v Holt(1904) 68 J.P. 271)

In Absalom v Martin, where the nearest public car park was several hundred yards away, the defendant parked partly on the carriageway and partly on the footpath and was endeavouring to carry on his business of bill posting in such a way as to cause the least inconvenience to pedestrians and other road users. A defendant who sold fruit from a barrow for 15 minutes, the barrow taking up 5ft in a 24ft road and customers causing further obstruction, was held to have been rightly convicted, as continuous selling does not mean that the barrow was not standing longer than was necessary (Whitseside v Watson1952 S.L.T. 367).

In Bego v Gardner1933 S.L.T. 110 the conviction was upheld of a man who sold ices from his van parked in a cul-de-sac frequented by the public.

Leaving a car unattended for three hours, which was found to cause danger to the public and annoyance to the residents but which was not specifically found to cause an obstruction, was held to constitute the offence of leaving a car unattended for longer than was necessary to load or unload it (Henderson v Gray [1927] S.C.(J.) 43).

A motorist parked his car in a line of cars in a street and left it there for five hours. He argued that, as he parked in a line of cars, he was not causing an unnecessary obstruction. The High Court held that he clearly caused one (Solomon v Durbridge(1956) 120 J.P. 231) …

Parking for five hours on a grass verge between the footpath and the wall was held to cause an unnecessary obstruction in Worth v Brooks[1959] Crim. L.R. 885, but in Police v O’Connor[1957] Crim. L.R. 478, quarter sessions held that it was not an unreasonable use of the highway to park a large vehicle outside the driver’s own house in a cul-de-sac

In Seekings v Clarke(1961) 59 L.G. 268, a case under what is now s.137 not involving a motor vehicle, it was said that anything which substantially prevented the public from passing over the whole of the highway (including the footway) and which was not purely temporary was an unlawful obstruction, subject to an exception on the de minimis principle. This case is discussed in Wolverton UDC v Willis[1962] 1 All E.R. 243.

Heres section 103 again

section 103 said:

Obstruction
103. No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road.

and from sn01170 to show discretion

sn01170 said:

If therefore it can be shown that a vehicle is illegally parked, causing an obstruction or is abandoned, the local authority and the police may remove it under this legislation. It should be pointed out, however, that they do not have to remove a vehicle in any of these three cases, merely that they may do so.

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 16th February 23:11

[M-SportMatt]

saaby93 said:

M-SportMatt said:

You are trolling and retarded

You don't understand the legal definition of obstruction

If I park outside my neighbors house in a legitimate space, regardless of where else I can park there is no law, no coppers discretion or any other made up bullst Jedi force that can force me to move it and I sure as hell wouldn't end up in court.

You are on crack if you think otherwise, either post the case law or shut up, you have had your chance and keep failing to deliver any information to back up your fantasy claims but are arguing for arguing sake.

If there is no obstruction it is legal. End of

Name calling wont help your case but as you say at the end if there is no obstruction it is legal
What we're talking about is where there is obstruction and specifically unnecessary obstruction
You've provided some of the case law - Ive highlighted it for you
If you want to close your eyes and say the indicated sections of law don't exist that's your prerogative
Last time I looked the world was still round

Here we go - your link ( theyre examples to show where it can go either way)

sn1170 said:

It was again emphasised in Wade v Grange (1977) R.T.R. 417 that what amounts to obstruction is primarily a question of fact and that the Divisional Court is only concerned with correcting mistaken applications of the law

Whether particular facts amount to an unreasonable use would depend very much on the magistrates’ local knowledge of the importance of the particular road; a long stay may not be out of order in a quiet residential side road, but it would be otherwise in a busy shopping street. An obstruction only comes into existence if there is an unreasonable use of the right of stopping (Nagy v Weston above), and it is a matter of degree (Dunn v Holt(1904) 68 J.P. 271)

In Absalom v Martin, where the nearest public car park was several hundred yards away, the defendant parked partly on the carriageway and partly on the footpath and was endeavouring to carry on his business of bill posting in such a way as to cause the least inconvenience to pedestrians and other road users. A defendant who sold fruit from a barrow for 15 minutes, the barrow taking up 5ft in a 24ft road and customers causing further obstruction, was held to have been rightly convicted, as continuous selling does not mean that the barrow was not standing longer than was necessary (Whitseside v Watson1952 S.L.T. 367).

In Bego v Gardner1933 S.L.T. 110 the conviction was upheld of a man who sold ices from his van parked in a cul-de-sac frequented by the public.

Leaving a car unattended for three hours, which was found to cause danger to the public and annoyance to the residents but which was not specifically found to cause an obstruction, was held to constitute the offence of leaving a car unattended for longer than was necessary to load or unload it (Henderson v Gray [1927] S.C.(J.) 43).

A motorist parked his car in a line of cars in a street and left it there for five hours. He argued that, as he parked in a line of cars, he was not causing an unnecessary obstruction. The High Court held that he clearly caused one (Solomon v Durbridge(1956) 120 J.P. 231) …

Parking for five hours on a grass verge between the footpath and the wall was held to cause an unnecessary obstruction in Worth v Brooks[1959] Crim. L.R. 885, but in Police v O’Connor[1957] Crim. L.R. 478, quarter sessions held that it was not an unreasonable use of the highway to park a large vehicle outside the driver’s own house in a cul-de-sac

In Seekings v Clarke(1961) 59 L.G. 268, a case under what is now s.137 not involving a motor vehicle, it was said that anything which substantially prevented the public from passing over the whole of the highway (including the footway) and which was not purely temporary was an unlawful obstruction, subject to an exception on the de minimis principle. This case is discussed in Wolverton UDC v Willis[1962] 1 All E.R. 243.

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 16th February 22:57

As I said all along, nothing stopping me parking outside a neighbours house any time I like.

All of your cases involve either parking on the pavement , a commercial vehicle or obstruction as I defined earlier today in my post of the Highways act.

The problem still is that you don't understand what constitutes an obstruction. Me parking where my neighbour wants to, isn't and never will be an obstruction.

You can keep arguing all you like but it's not open to interpretation or the judge or the coppers mood.

Nobody has ever said they can legally park and cause an obstruction, but popping your car outside a neighbours or strangers house where people normally park will never and has never been against any law.

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

As I said all along, nothing stopping me parking outside a neighbours house any time I like.

All of your cases involve either parking on the pavement , a commercial vehicle or obstruction as I defined earlier today in my post of the Highways act.

The problem still is that you don't understand what constitutes an obstruction. Me parking where my neighbour wants to, isn't and never will be an obstruction.

You can keep arguing all you like but it's not open to interpretation or the judge or the coppers mood.

Nobody has ever said they can legally park and cause an obstruction, but popping your car outside a neighbours or strangers house where people normally park will never and has never been against any law.

Maybe not, but check it's not an unnecessary obstruction first
I added in the other few paragraphs at the front of the quote above for completeness
and yes 'unnecessary obstruction' is open to interpretation which is why there is case law around it.

ETA Here's the updated paragraph

sn1170 said:

Obstruction can be caused by actual physical obstruction of an essential line of traffic … or it may be unreasonable use of the right of stopping even though there is plenty of room for other traffic to pass

While there is obviously an offence if there is a serious obstruction in fact, unreasonable use of the highway calculated to obstruct and whereby persons might be obstructed may suffice for a conviction without evidence that anyone has actually been obstructed (Gill v Carson(1917) 81 J.P. 250, a case under the Town and Police Clauses Act 1848, s.28).

In Nagy v Weston [1965] 1 All E.R. 78 parking a van for five minutes in a wide, busy street near a bus stop and refusing to move was held to be an obstruction under what is now s.137 of the Highways Act 1980

It was again emphasised in Wade v Grange (1977) R.T.R. 417 that what amounts to obstruction is primarily a question of fact and that the Divisional Court is only concerned with correcting mistaken applications of the law

Whether particular facts amount to an unreasonable use would depend very much on the magistrates’ local knowledge of the importance of the particular road; a long stay may not be out of order in a quiet residential side road, but it would be otherwise in a busy shopping street. An obstruction only comes into existence if there is an unreasonable use of the right of stopping (Nagy v Weston above), and it is a matter of degree (Dunn v Holt(1904) 68 J.P. 271)

In Absalom v Martin, where the nearest public car park was several hundred yards away, the defendant parked partly on the carriageway and partly on the footpath and was endeavouring to carry on his business of bill posting in such a way as to cause the least inconvenience to pedestrians and other road users. A defendant who sold fruit from a barrow for 15 minutes, the barrow taking up 5ft in a 24ft road and customers causing further obstruction, was held to have been rightly convicted, as continuous selling does not mean that the barrow was not standing longer than was necessary (Whitseside v Watson1952 S.L.T. 367).

In Bego v Gardner1933 S.L.T. 110 the conviction was upheld of a man who sold ices from his van parked in a cul-de-sac frequented by the public.

Leaving a car unattended for three hours, which was found to cause danger to the public and annoyance to the residents but which was not specifically found to cause an obstruction, was held to constitute the offence of leaving a car unattended for longer than was necessary to load or unload it (Henderson v Gray [1927] S.C.(J.) 43).

A motorist parked his car in a line of cars in a street and left it there for five hours. He argued that, as he parked in a line of cars, he was not causing an unnecessary obstruction. The High Court held that he clearly caused one (Solomon v Durbridge(1956) 120 J.P. 231) …

Parking for five hours on a grass verge between the footpath and the wall was held to cause an unnecessary obstruction in Worth v Brooks[1959] Crim. L.R. 885, but in Police v O’Connor[1957] Crim. L.R. 478, quarter sessions held that it was not an unreasonable use of the highway to park a large vehicle outside the driver’s own house in a cul-de-sac

In Seekings v Clarke(1961) 59 L.G. 268, a case under what is now s.137 not involving a motor vehicle, it was said that anything which substantially prevented the public from passing over the whole of the highway (including the footway) and which was not purely temporary was an unlawful obstruction, subject to an exception on the de minimis principle. This case is discussed in Wolverton UDC v Willis[1962] 1 All E.R. 243.

and note SN1170 confirms the above doesnt have to be enforced but may be

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 16th February 23:41

[M-SportMatt]

saaby93 said:

M-SportMatt said:

As I said all along, nothing stopping me parking outside a neighbours house any time I like.

All of your cases involve either parking on the pavement , a commercial vehicle or obstruction as I defined earlier today in my post of the Highways act.

The problem still is that you don't understand what constitutes an obstruction. Me parking where my neighbour wants to, isn't and never will be an obstruction.

You can keep arguing all you like but it's not open to interpretation or the judge or the coppers mood.

Nobody has ever said they can legally park and cause an obstruction, but popping your car outside a neighbours or strangers house where people normally park will never and has never been against any law.

Maybe not, but check it's not an unnecessary obstruction first
I added in the other few paragraphs at the front of the quote above for completeness

Civil cases...... which you aren't going to get the police acting on or commenting on. And parking where someone else usually parks isn't an obstruction.

As I keep saying, you don't understand the definition of an obstruction, as defined in the highways act which post dates those quoted civil cases which involve pavements, busy high streets and commercial vehicles, non of which is about the point of the thread about parking outside a neighbours or strangers house.

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

As I keep saying, you don't understand the definition of an obstruction, as defined in the highways act which post dates those quoted civil cases which involve pavements, busy high streets and commercial vehicles, non of which is about the point of the thread about parking outside a neighbours or strangers house.

We're talking about construction and use regs

[sebhaque]

I read these types of thread occasionally and wonder what type of person gets to the stage where they argue with neighbours over parking cars on the road.

I used to ask my neighbours if they'd mind if I parked one of my cars on their drive overnight if I had family/friends over. There was never a problem, even when I came home early one evening and found my neighbour's car on my drive. I simply parked on his drive, retired for the night, and wished him good morning as we hopped the boundary to get into our own cars on the other side of the driveway. We still laugh about that now.

That being said, I've now moved to a property where I'm lucky enough to be able to fit about half a dozen cars on the drive with ample space. One day last summer I decided to give the drive a bit of a clean, so I popped two cars in the garage (I normally don't use it if I don't have visitors as it's a faff to get in and out of) and the third on the road, outside my neighbour's house. She's in her 80s, doesn't drive, has replaced her driveway with grass and birdhouses, but when I parked up, I soon saw her hobbling out of her front door, a rather uppity look on her face, and heard an "excuse me!" which was quite obviously leading to a "you can't park there". When she noticed it was me she just waved and went back inside - but I don't understand the issue with someone parking on the road outside your house. There's a school a bit further down my road and I occasionally get a couple of cars parked up tight against my driveway boundary. Yes, it's a pain to get out, but that's just part of living on a road that gets busy and has parking available outside my house. Occasionally if I'm working from home I'll wander outside to get some fresh air and let the yummy mummies know that I'm not going out so they can block the drive for half an hour or so if they want. Funnily enough since I started letting people park across my driveway, I tend to see fewer cars actually parked near the drive. Maybe one of the mums is on PH and insisted that I was an angry man and to give my house a wide berth.

[nish81]

Storer said:

Roads are not for parking on, other than for short periods. They were designed to allow horses and horse & carts to move from place to place. Horses were never stabled on the road!
Somehow it has become acceptable to see the public highway/thoroughfare as somewhere acceptable to park, especially outside a car owner's home.

Why the hell should it be free to 'keep' your car on the road. If your house has no off road parking then you should have to prove you have somewhere off-road you can leave your car when not being used before you can buy/RFL it.

I know this will not be a popular point of view but on road parking is part of the problem with congestion in towns.

Roads are highways for movement. Not free (or paid for) car parks.

This might work well wherever you live but I live in a part of london where if i couldn't park on the road i wouldn't be able to own a car, simple as that. off-road parking just isn't widespread at all here. and I love car, so I must disagree with you

[M-SportMatt]

saaby93 said:

e're talking about construction and use regs

The salient bit is unreasonable obstruction of right of stopping

Which does not apply if I park outside someone's house in a usual parking spot

You are arguing for arguing sake and those cases do not apply, and certainly the police wouldn't enforce as it's a civil matter if a matter at all.

Nobody can stop you leaving your car in a normal parking spot outside someone else's house

[Dixy]

nish81 said:

if i couldn't park on the road i wouldn't be able to own a car, simple as that.

Nail, head, don't have a car.

[SS2.]

saaby93 said:

What we're talking about is where there is obstruction and specifically unnecessary obstruction..

Are 'we' ?

Earlier saaby93 said:

You don't have a right to park anywhere, and particularly repeatedly outside someones house with whom you have no business.

[saaby93]

SS2. said:

saaby93 said:

What we're talking about is where there is obstruction and specifically unnecessary obstruction..

Are 'we' ?

Earlier saaby93 said:

You don't have a right to park anywhere, and particularly repeatedly outside someones house with whom you have no business.

That'll be a good interpretation - there is no 'right'.
If you think there is a 'right' point to the piece of law that says it

What happens in many streets where there are cars either side is park by agreement, everyone's come to a tacit agreement that's what they'll do. It doesn't prevent it being deemed an obstruction, and as in that case law, someone doesn't need to be actually obstructed.

I don't why we're arguing about it.
In the thread many years ago which I think was in SP&L...
If a nurse or doctor parks up outside a house to visit a patient they have a need and the obstruction is necessary, unless of course its a very busy narrow road and traffic soon tails back and it could be asked why they couldn't park around the corner in a side street.

If you buy a Winebago you use twice a year but have nowhere in your own property to park it so leave it in the road outside your neighbour's house, how long do you think before they complain?
Time to find a suitable long term parking place

It's a reasonable piece of law about how you use your vehicle, it's not used very often but is there if you need it ( and is subject to interpretation so unreasonable cases have been thrown out)

[SS2.]

saaby93 said:

SS2. said:

saaby93 said:

What we're talking about is where there is obstruction and specifically unnecessary obstruction..

Are 'we' ?

Earlier saaby93 said:

You don't have a right to park anywhere, and particularly repeatedly outside someones house with whom you have no business.

That'll be a good interpretation - there is no 'right'.
If you think there is a 'right' point to the piece of law that says it

Nulla poena sine lege.

You keep referring to 'cases' and 'case law' which prove that parking lawfully outside of someone else's house with whom you have no business can / will result in penalties being imposed or your vehicle being towed. Why not simplify things for all of us by copy and pasting (or linking) those cases / relevant case law directly into this thread ?

Edited by SS2. on Friday 17th February 11:13