You do NOT own the parking space outside your residence.

[blueg33]

HantsRat said:

blueg33 said:

Of course if you were on private land without consent you may have been trespassing. land does not have to have access excluded for trespass to occur. If by waiting on the land you were depriving the owner of the use of the land then that is actionable whether or not a loss has occurred.

So you shouldn't be laughing, you should be apologising.

Except Police are exempt from that when working and performing legal police duties. It was a normal road, just unadopted from the council. Anyone can enter said land.

Waiting for a recovery truck? Is that a legal police duty?

As I said just because anyone can access doesn't mean that people who do access aren't trespassing.

I can probably access your drive at home and park my car there. I would still be trespassing whether you have a gate or not.

[HantsRat]

blueg33 said:

Waiting for a recovery truck? Is that a legal police duty?

Of course it is. We have seized a vehicle under S 165 road traffic act so that vehicle is now under Police control. Part of that process is waiting for a recovery truck. Do you really think people can drive without insurance on unadopted roads and get away with it because Police are not allowed to 'trespass' on the land?

[blueg33]

HantsRat said:

Of course it is. We have seized a vehicle under S 165 road traffic act so that vehicle is now under Police control. Part of that process is waiting for a recovery truck. Do you really think people can drive without insurance on unadopted roads and get away with it because Police are not allowed to 'trespass' on the land?

Thanks, I was interested.

If its not necessary for the police to enter the land then its trespass, regardless of gates, fences or signs.

I am just not all that amused by the apparent attitude to the landowner,

[HantsRat]

blueg33 said:

Thanks, I was interested.

If its not necessary for the police to enter the land then its trespass, regardless of gates, fences or signs.

I am just not all that amused by the apparent attitude to the landowner,

So what you are saying is the Police can't routine patrol a big estate if it's on an unadopted road? Utter tosh. If that were the case, burglaries would rocket in these areas if the police weren't allowed to patrol.

Just to note, Tresspass is only a civil offence.

Edited by HantsRat on Monday 10th April 12:23

[blueg33]

HantsRat said:

blueg33 said:

Thanks, I was interested.

If its not necessary for the police to enter the land then its trespass, regardless of gates, fences or signs.

I am just not all that amused by the apparent attitude to the landowner,

So what you are saying is the Police can't routine patrol a big estate if it's on an unadopted road? Utter tosh. If that were the case, burglaries would rocket in these areas if the police weren't allowed to patrol.

Just to note, Tresspass is only a civil offence.

Edited by HantsRat on Monday 10th April 12:23

Theoretically it would be trespass, yes, you are probably entering private estates with consent, You can call it tosh, but its still trespass.

Thanks I am fully aware of trespass, it is based on the law of Tort, however in some circumstances trespass under UK law can be a criminal offence, although that's not what we are discussing here.

[Jonno02]

blueg33 said:

Waiting for a recovery truck? Is that a legal police duty?

As I said just because anyone can access doesn't mean that people who do access aren't trespassing.

I can probably access your drive at home and park my car there. I would still be trespassing whether you have a gate or not.

You must be a right laugh.

[mfmman]

if the wording 'unadopted' rather than 'private' had been used in the first place then there would have been no debate

[turbobloke]

HantsRat said:

I have pulled over a vehicle the other day due to no insurance, he stopped in a private road. Whilst waiting for recovery truck a home owner came out and told us all to move as we were on a private road. I couldn't help but laugh it was hilarious. He wasn't impressed when I pointed out anyone can drive on his 'private' road and I wouldn't be moving. The only difference is the council do not pay for the upkeep of said road.

Priceless. You can't beat a bit of education, particularly when taking out an uninsured driver.

[surveyor_101]

Sir Lord Poopie said:

Several reasons:

1) Cost and admin
2) My current residence is temporary which means I could leave at any time
3) I already pay good money to use the road in the form of car tax
4) I do not wish to be put on a database so the authorities know where I reside

These all sound pretty poor excuses.

1) Same as your neighbours what makes you special?
2) Temp like a couple of weeks?
3) Its vehicle exercise licence, its not road tax anymore.
4) So your cars not registered to you? I expect it is if taxed you have to have an address that the authorities to use for your car. So this excuse is laughable. How do you pay council tax? Mr X


Your right you don't own the road outside your house but its polite and neighbourly not to cause someone else a nuance because you can't be bothered to get a permit for your own house.

Personally I like my cars on/in front of my house. I wouldn't park it street over because I am too tight to pay for permit and to paranoid for basingstoke council to hold my details

[blueg33]

Jonno02 said:

You must be a right laugh.

Property law is a large part of my day job

[Mrr T]

mfmman said:

if the wording 'unadopted' rather than 'private' had been used in the first place then there would have been no debate

I am not sure you are right. A private road is always unadopted (I believe) but it may still be a public road.

The offence had to be committed on a public road but it’s unclear if the vehicle then stopped on a private, but public road which is unadopted, or a private road which is not public.

I would assume the officer would have powers to enter a private road which is not public in pursuit of a vehicle which had committed an offence on a public but unadopted road.

The officer would have had the right to enter so no trespass would be committed.

I hope that clears that up.

[SS2.]

Mrr T said:

The offence had to be committed on a public road but it’s unclear if the vehicle then stopped on a private, but public road which is unadopted, or a private road which is not public..

Moot point perhaps, but users of motor vehicles are required to have insurance in place both on roads and other public places.

There's no need for uninsured use to be confined to a 'road' for the offence to be complete.

[Mrr T]

SS2. said:

Mrr T said:

The offence had to be committed on a public road but it’s unclear if the vehicle then stopped on a private, but public road which is unadopted, or a private road which is not public..

Moot point perhaps, but users of motor vehicles are required to have insurance in place both on roads and other public places.

There's no need for uninsured use to be confined to a 'road' for the offence to be complete.

Your right of cause insurance is a statutory requirement it might still have to insured, not sure if the officer had only seen the vehicle on a private road which is not public would have the right to enter a private road which is not public to seize said vehicle, I am sure he will tell us.

Obviously you can still drive a SORN vehicle with out insurance on a private road which is not pubic but not a private road which is public.

[mfmman]

Mrr T said:

mfmman said:

if the wording 'unadopted' rather than 'private' had been used in the first place then there would have been no debate

I am not sure you are right. A private road is always unadopted (I believe) but it may still be a public road.

The offence had to be committed on a public road but it’s unclear if the vehicle then stopped on a private, but public road which is unadopted, or a private road which is not public.

I would assume the officer would have powers to enter a private road which is not public in pursuit of a vehicle which had committed an offence on a public but unadopted road.

The officer would have had the right to enter so no trespass would be committed.

I hope that clears that up.

I don't know what might or might not be cleared up

I was remarking on the fact that HantsRat described it as private in his first post but as unadopted in every response

If he had described it as unadopted in the first instance then I don't think there would have been any questioning of his post

[talksthetorque]

surveyor_101 said:

3) Its vehicle exercise licence, its not road tax anymore.

You know if you're going to correct someone's post from almost two months ago.....

[Origin Unknown]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/in-for-a-nasty-...

[DonkeyApple]

I started reading that with the clear opinion that the bloke was obviously a tool.

However, this is one of those cases where the law does not align with basic civility. The type of person who deliberately inconveniences others so they can save a few quid on parking really are ghastly little punters.

There is a fuzzy line somewhere where parking in a residential area to visit someone or run an errand is clearly fine but parking up for several days to avoid parking charges is just too low rent and very disrespectful. In short, if you can afford to fly you can afford to park.

Obviously it is not a line that can be enforced but it does seem that the number of horrible, self centred, greedy little scrotes has been expanding at a near exponential rate in the U.K.

[barker22]

Well the owners of the skoda may possibly see this.
In any case, if there is anything such as a small mark anywhere on the car surely the guy has opened himself up to a world of pain. He's in the paper saying he did it fgs! The owners could say the damage wasn't there when they left it.

[Hol]

barker22 said:

Well the owners of the skoda may possibly see this.
In any case, if there is anything such as a small mark anywhere on the car surely the guy has opened himself up to a world of pain. He's in the paper saying he did it fgs! The owners could say the damage wasn't there when they left it.

I wouldn't worry, most people on social media will still think the Skoda owners are aholes. Because its true.

[Cliftonite]

Origin Unknown said:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/in-for-a-nasty-...

A click-bait set-up?