Parking law

[Rob-s5mok]

I went for a walk with my dog on a local beach yesterday morning, parking in my usual place, see piccy. I do understand that you can't park inside a double yellow line on a pavement etc but there is surely no jurisdiction of the council on a piece of scrubland?


I plan to appeal it.

[Some Gump]

You won't get far...

https://www.drivingtesttips.biz

Also, is that not a passing place on a single lane road?

[Ian Geary]

As I understand it, yellow lines apply to the road (carriageway) path and verge.

So the scrubland, which appears to be flattened down verge, would be subject to the lines.

A possible "out" would be the scrub land being owned by someone other than the highway authority, and you providing it wasn't part of "the verge".

Ian

[Rob-s5mok]

Thanks. The double yellows are there because it's near a junction. The spaces are there because people park there! Ownership of the land is almost certainly the farm, they just can't get machinery into the corner (I was parked where the car is parked in this Google image)

[Equus]

Rob-s5mok said:

Ownership of the land is almost certainly the farm...

I would very much doubt that: I'd expect it to be Highway verge, but if you can give the postcode I can provide a map extract showing the land ownership (if it's registered).

Edited by Equus on Sunday 3rd April 08:45

[Rob-s5mok]

Equus said:

I would very much doubt that: I'd expect it to be Highway verge, but if you can give the postcode I can provide a map extract showing the land ownership (if it's registered).

Thanks. Nearest I can find is NR34 7JW

[Equus]

The bit that's NOT in pink will be highway verge. Note that where you were parked, the verge is actually quite a bit wider than the tarmac carriageway of the road:

[Pit Pony]

I know that some councils have local bylaws that say the verge has the same parking restrictions as the road.

I'd appeal anyway.

[Rob-s5mok]

Thanks. I will still appeal it and hope that the assessor agrees that their attendant needs to get a life!

[anonymous-user]

My parents live in the Lake District, and there are huge problems with exactly this kind of parking.

The whole place is regularly littered with visitors cars which have been parked ‘behind’ yellow lines, often churning up the verges and making a right mess.

I never thought a traffic warden would be a good thing, but they have now started to ticket this kind of parking on an almost daily basis.

OP, as the others and Equus has shown, you are bang to rights I’m afraid. I doubt your appeal will be worthwhile. Take it as a learning experience.

[Riley Blue]

Rob-s5mok said:

Thanks. I will still appeal it and hope that the assessor agrees that their attendant needs to get a life!

You've parked on a verge which is subject to parking restrictions. On what grounds do you intend to appeal?

[OutInTheShed]

If the verge is highway, the double yellow lines apply.

If it's not, then unless the OP has the landowner's permission to drive on it, could be more serious than a parking fine.

A lot of verges don't belong to the highway.

[Equus]

OutInTheShed said:

A lot of verges don't belong to the highway.

... but the above Land Registry extract indicates that this one does.

[GasEngineer]

Lord Marylebone said:

My parents live in the Lake District, and there are huge problems with exactly this kind of parking.

The whole place is regularly littered with visitors cars which have been parked ‘behind’ yellow lines, often churning up the verges and making a right mess.

I never thought a traffic warden would be a good thing, but they have now started to ticket this kind of parking on an almost daily basis.

OP, as the others and Equus has shown, you are bang to rights I’m afraid. I doubt your appeal will be worthwhile. Take it as a learning experience.

..And this type of inconsiderate parking is probably why the double yellows had to be installed in the first place.

[OutInTheShed]

Equus said:

OutInTheShed said:

A lot of verges don't belong to the highway.

... but the above Land Registry extract indicates that this one does.

Indicates, yes, proves, no.

You'd need to get the title plan of the adjacent property.

The lane outside my house looks quite different on the LR map which is much the same as the Council interactive map, to the title plan.
It was made very plain to me that the council only own the tarmac.

In recent years, councils have been keen to offload the responsibility of care for such land that they don't own to the actual landowner.

There are lots of little slivers of land like that which are not public and many of the maps don't reflect that, the maps go by fences and walls etc, which may be very different from the legal boundaries.
Often on country lanes, the boundary of the freehold may be down the middle of the lane!
Many places, a bit of mud or gravel alongside a road like that is 'private parking for XXXX cottage' or something. Often with double yellows on the edge of the highway.

Equally my old house had a wide verge on one side which did indeed belong to the council.

[Equus]

OutInTheShed said:

Indicates, yes, proves, no.

You'd need to get the title plan of the adjacent property.

That is what the pink is showing (the title of the adjacent property).

The fact that the road corridor is not tinted pink merely indicates that it is unregistered, but I can tell you from experience (I work with these sorts of plans every day) that the registration of the neighbouring property will have been drawn by the Land Registry to conform to the highway adoption plan for the road corridor.

[SteveStrange]

The yellow lines cover the extent of "maintainable/maintained highway", from boundary to boundary. If we are being pedantic, then actual ownership of the land does not come in to it. If the area is subject to highway rights (which can include verges available for installing signs, corridors for utilities, etc), then the yellows apply.

I'd say the OP's ticket was validly issued.

Yours,

A highways officer from a neighbouring authority

[Downward]

It’s like this a lot.
This road just got double yellows each side.
Still people park each side as the car park shuts at 6pm so it’s bad in the evening and the fact the car park isn’t free so people park.
Council could make loads of money enforcing the double yellows instead of raising council tax.
Plus when cars park either side you’ll get a stand off.

https://goo.gl/maps/DzUafzSGx4aPGkQH8

[Equus]

SteveStrange said:

If we are being pedantic, then actual ownership of the land does not come in to it.

This is true: it used to be commonplace to convey the actual land ownership of neighbouring plots to the centreline of the road, and Highways would merely 'adopt' and control the road, pavement and verges that sat on it, with the extent of the adoption (and therefore highway control) being defined by a drawing under what is known as a Section 38 Agreement.

These days the land controlled by the Section 38 agreeement typically forms its own land title, but again the ownership can actually be retained by the developer (or A. N. Other) and the Highway Authority merely 'adopts' its control and maintenance.

...But in this case, I can tell you from experience that the road corridor will consist of land historically owned by the Local Authority and the extent of the Highway for maintenance and control purposes will match the extent of the untinted corridor on the drawing I posted.

[bigandclever]

Since we’re all doing screen grabs ..