Parking

[scout]

As is said (loosely) in Jurassic Park

"Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something"

 

[Ziggy122]

I still don't understand why you feel antagonising the neighbour is a good idea :shrug:

not a case of wanting to antagonise anybody with parking

But how he' seems to think getting a £10 note - scribbling out 10 and writing 20 on it and calling it a £20 note

Thats exactly what he's done, taken a wall down to a pretty much Non exsistant garden and calling it his drive, when he's parked 75% on the pavement still? :nutter:

Joke is - i've been parking there for the past 4 to 5 years, he's only recently turned on the scene (last year) took his fustration out on the wall when he's couldnt park near his house by another party not related to any of us

Ziggy

 

[dave]

maybe some photos or google street/satellite view will help us understand?

 

[Ziggy122]

unfortunatly the over view isn't great

And the street view is 2 images merged a little So here is the best i can do



Car A - The House owners Own Car
Car B - His car
Light blue sqwiggle - The wall removed
Car C (red) - where i park
Car C (Green) - Where i often park
Where Car C is, there is NO DIP

i hope this makes it clearer
he's now been a Bugger, using the dip i do cover been my partners parents house to get to his """Drive """ so it making it impossible to stop near there, he's leaving his back end pretty much inline with the Straight line of the wall to the First Full pavement edge

 

[dave]

why not park next to(oo?) the panda?

 

[Ziggy122]

why not park next to(oo?) the panda?

Because there is a very long wheelbase transit which lives there, the front end of that is pretty much back to the window and front end on the grass

So i cant park on the road there because i'd block the road
and i cant park on the kerb because it leaves no room for any body to walk down

What i've also noticed is that the house next to A with the deep tyre tracks in the grass use where Car A's dip is
Also - when the transit is parked there / not parked there, people block it in
Which we can do nothing about as told by the police/HWA because there is no dip
So surly this applies to this situation too?

Ziggy

 

[AndyRKett]

As previously pointed out, you have absolutely no right to park on the road, anywhere outside your girlfriends house or your own, the road belongs to the council so they will never come down on your side of the argument.

secondly looking at the pictures yeah he's parked where there is no dropped kerb and blocking half the pavement however when you park there, you're blocking half the pavement so all in all the pavement and pedestrian access is no better and no worse off.

finally it would seem looking at those pictures your girlfriends parents house is in much the same situation with access to the drive way a large chunk of which has no dropped kerb, so getting the council to go after him it inevitably going to backfire of your girlfriends parents. its argument for the sake of argument, there is no I was here first line of defence.

You will either have to concede the battle give up and let him park there or continue to escalate the issue till we read about you being punched in the face in the national news in the usual 'nasty neighbours' story

give him a few months of victory then call the council as a concerned local who couldn't get down the pavement with your wheel chair/push chair, because of his kack parking

 

[Ziggy122]

As previously pointed out, you have absolutely no right to park on the road, anywhere outside your girlfriends house or your own, the road belongs to the council so they will never come down on your side of the argument.

secondly looking at the pictures yeah he's parked where there is no dropped kerb and blocking half the pavement however when you park there, you're blocking half the pavement so all in all the pavement and pedestrian access is no better and no worse off.

finally it would seem looking at those pictures your girlfriends parents house is in much the same situation with access to the drive way a large chunk of which has no dropped kerb, so getting the council to go after him it inevitably going to backfire of your girlfriends parents. its argument for the sake of argument, there is no I was here first line of defence.

You will either have to concede the battle give up and let him park there or continue to escalate the issue till we read about you being punched in the face in the national news in the usual 'nasty neighbours' story

give him a few months of victory then call the council as a concerned local who couldn't get down the pavement with your wheel chair/push chair, because of his kack parking

its not a case of getting the council on my side / his side
What i want is some sort of authority to say he has no more right then i do to ""stop there""
I know first come first serve in this world isn't something that sticks, to me its never something i can ever remember saying like a 4-yo child

Im tempted to write a polite letter stating my side of the argument and to keep it between writing letters with no more shrimpy man vs Tall git shouting in the street
i'll politely highlight there is no dip and he's still parked on the pavement much as i am
So when his vehicle isn't there i shall continue to park as is fair, but i wont block him in to get out as that is asking for more trouble
Hell we dont need another freaking person on benifits because he cant get to work and gets fired

if he decides to write an abusive letter back then i'll ring the non-emergency police number and report it while keeping a copy

I'm not a violent person, but like anybody when threatened or abused its another kettle of fish, which those boys/girls in blue will be any judge should anything he decide to-do to me unlawfully

The blocking of the driveway isn't uncommon around there, most people have 2 cars now and the street isn't built for 1 per house let alone 2
The price of kerb dropping is stupidly high now and with the economy at the moment, not many people can afford it
The blocking of the non-dipped half drive of the otherhalfs again is something we just live with, the van gets blocked in cant do owt about it

 

[AndyRKett]

I know first come first serve in this world isn't something that sticks, to me its never something i can ever remember saying like a 4-yo child

What you said was

Joke is - i've been parking there for the past 4 to 5 years, he's only recently turned on the scene

Ziggy

That aside if you can park without restricting his access out side your girlfriends house then continue to do so, as Scout500 said just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, so to continue to park outside his house and provoke him is just asking for trouble.

If he were to cause damage to your car could you afford to get the car repaired, lets be honest he's not going to do it in front of you so proving he had any hand in any damage will be likely impossible, you might even have to claim off your insurance and put your insurance costs up.

the best thing about this situation is if you're not parked there then someone else will and you can have all the fun of watching him getting wound up without anyone to shout at.

save yourself the high blood pressure and either park only outside GF house or somewhere else

 

[dave]

if you an your gf get a flat together then you wont have to park there to see her :idea:

 

[Ziggy122]

if you an your gf get a flat together then you wont have to park there to see her :idea:

Thats our plan believe it or not

otherhalf has a job interview soon for a well paid job potentially

im currently still in my 2 out of 3 years mechanic training while working part time

So money is a no-no im affraid

ziggy

 

[The Beard]

You have no 'legal right' to park on the public highway (people never understand this)

They have a legal right to access to their property.

If you 'block' their access dipped kerb or not you are on the wrong side of the law because of their legal right of access. You are deemed to have blocked their access when they decide you have and can show a restriction in access to their property, I,e you are not blocking access to your girlfriends parents house if they say it is fine for you to park across their driveway.

It's pretty open/shut, its not a criminal matter and is all pretty much covered under civil law because of its subjectivity.

As others have said antagonising the neighbours of your girlfriends parents isn't a great idea, and is not a very sensible way to integrate into the family. If you were to break up in the future you could leave them with a big problem with their neighbours or even cause a split up.

We've had this kind of thing before on here, so here goes. You're right Andy, in as much as no-one has the right to park on the highway. However, it is not an offence to park as Ziggy has indicated. The offence of Unnecessary Obstruction of a "driveway" cannot have taken place because there is no driveway. If someone knocks a wall down then parks on their garden this doesn't make it a driveway. Without the presence of a dropped kerb, the offence of Unnecessary Obstruction can't have taken place. The dropped kerb is one of the points to prove. As is the presence of a vehicle already on the property. With most councils the dropped kerb must be put in by them and can't be done by the householder.

You do have to be careful, Ziggy, as you might inadvertently end up being done for Unnecessary Obstruction if you restrict the width of the pavement too much. Your local Constabulary can advise what their interpretation of that is.

You also might like to consider that driving across the footpath where there is no lowered kerb is also an offence, as is driving along the it. This would require all the wheels to be on it, two for a motorcycle and four for a car.

 

[AndyRKett]

We've had this kind of thing before on here, so here goes. You're right Andy, in as much as no-one has the right to park on the highway. However, it is not an offence to park as Ziggy has indicated. The offence of Unnecessary Obstruction of a "driveway" cannot have taken place because there is no driveway. If someone knocks a wall down then parks on their garden this doesn't make it a driveway. Without the presence of a dropped kerb, the offence of Unnecessary Obstruction can't have taken place. The dropped kerb is one of the points to prove.

I think you've missed out quite a chunk of this thread, so I needs to be pointed out that a 'dropped kerb' is not defined anywhere in law as a drive way that is to say that the absence of a dropped kerb does not mean that a person does not have a right of access vehicular or otherwise to their property.

In this instance the home owner has created a vehicular access to a 'drive way' which is permissible under section 184 of the highways act of 1980. Now the local authority have a right to request a dropped kerb be installed at the location under this act, and can impose restrictions on the access via this crossing, but they can only do this once they know the drive way exists and is being used, and once they have given notice to the tenant(s) as per subsection 1(a,b) so at this stage no offence has been committed by the tenant in creating a vehicular access to the property.

The tenants can make an application to have a dropped kerb installed, again under this act section 184 subsection 11, which the council can either accept or refuse and again impose restrictions on access under subsection 1(b)

You can in any situation drive over the pathway to gain "lawful access" to your property, so until any provision is made under the highways act 1980 section 184 subsection 1(a)(b) the access is lawful and the guy is well with in his rights to use his make shift drive, now his car could be deemed to cause an obstruction (section 130) but again it would need to be reported to the local authority to act upon.

As this man has lawful access to block his car on the driveway would be unlawful, however Ziggy may park across the make shift drive when there is no vechle parked there as he is not causing an obstruction that would interfere with the other guys enjoyment as can anyone as It does not form part of a 'dropped foot way as covered under the Traffic Management act (2004)

In any case a parking over a dropped kerb does not constitute an offence until you are deemed to cause an obstruction,
creating your own drive way/access is permissible however the local authority retain the right to impose restrictions on this but can only do so once they know about it.
Ziggy has no right to prevent him leaving his make shift drive but he also has no legal requirement to leave access if there is no car there.

The final thing is there are a number of other possibilities that can be taken into account such as Ziggy parking over this drive on purpose could be consider a nuisance which can be dealt with under law, or the blistering rows in the street constitute a breech of the peace.

Is quite a complicated area which is not summed up by the simple presence of a dropped kerb or not.

And as pointed out perusing the neighbour for his lack of dropped kerb could back fire on Ziggy's girlfriend's parents who are also guilty of having an area of drive way not accessible by a dropped kerb

 

[The Beard]

You're right, I did miss out a chunk of the thread. However, over the years I've been called to countless cases of "Unnecessary Obstruction". Regardless of what you've found the Police will not issue a ticket, nor summons for appearance before the Magistrates.

Lawful access requires that a driver does not break the law. Section 184 that you quote "makes it an offence to drive a vehicle across a footway or verge where there is no proper vehicle crossover. It also allows for the Highway Authority to arrange for a vehicle crossover to be constructed at the expense of the applicant."

No dropped kerb = no offence. The work the council would carry out to create a crossing includes hardening the surface and sub-surface to protect what may be underneath it and to resist any subsidence that may occur from the weight of vehicles that the original footpath wasn't built to take. That is why it is illegal for the neighbour to drive across the pavement without the hardening work taking place.

The neighbour may also need to seek planning permission to convert the front from a garden to a drive if the area in question is greater than 5 sq mtrs. To park a car you would need an area of at least 3mtrs (probably 4) by 2

 

[Ziggy122]

I think you've missed out quite a chunk of this thread, so I needs to be pointed out that a 'dropped kerb' is not defined anywhere in law as a drive way that is to say that the absence of a dropped kerb does not mean that a person does not have a right of access vehicular or otherwise to their property.

In this instance the home owner has created a vehicular access to a 'drive way' which is permissible under section 184 of the highways act of 1980. Now the local authority have a right to request a dropped kerb be installed at the location under this act, and can impose restrictions on the access via this crossing, but they can only do this once they know the drive way exists and is being used, and once they have given notice to the tenant(s) as per subsection 1(a,b) so at this stage no offence has been committed by the tenant in creating a vehicular access to the property.

The tenants can make an application to have a dropped kerb installed, again under this act section 184 subsection 11, which the council can either accept or refuse and again impose restrictions on access under subsection 1(b)

You can in any situation drive over the pathway to gain "lawful access" to your property, so until any provision is made under the highways act 1980 section 184 subsection 1(a)(b) the access is lawful and the guy is well with in his rights to use his make shift drive, now his car could be deemed to cause an obstruction (section 130) but again it would need to be reported to the local authority to act upon.

As this man has lawful access to block his car on the driveway would be unlawful, however Ziggy may park across the make shift drive when there is no vechle parked there as he is not causing an obstruction that would interfere with the other guys enjoyment as can anyone as It does not form part of a 'dropped foot way as covered under the Traffic Management act (2004)

In any case a parking over a dropped kerb does not constitute an offence until you are deemed to cause an obstruction,
creating your own drive way/access is permissible however the local authority retain the right to impose restrictions on this but can only do so once they know about it.
Ziggy has no right to prevent him leaving his make shift drive but he also has no legal requirement to leave access if there is no car there.

The final thing is there are a number of other possibilities that can be taken into account such as Ziggy parking over this drive on purpose could be consider a nuisance which can be dealt with under law, or the blistering rows in the street constitute a breech of the peace.

Is quite a complicated area which is not summed up by the simple presence of a dropped kerb or not.

And as pointed out perusing the neighbour for his lack of dropped kerb could back fire on Ziggy's girlfriend's parents who are also guilty of having an area of drive way not accessible by a dropped kerb

Thats the thing tho - the van gets blocked in - we know there is nothing we can do about it
And at the end of the day - the van Could be wiggled out if required but at the end of the day the problem of an old street vs new cars is not going to work ever

You're right, I did miss out a chunk of the thread. However, over the years I've been called to countless cases of "Unnecessary Obstruction". Regardless of what you've found the Police will not issue a ticket, nor summons for appearance before the Magistrates.

Lawful access requires that a driver does not break the law. Section 184 that you quote "makes it an offence to drive a vehicle across a footway or verge where there is no proper vehicle crossover. It also allows for the Highway Authority to arrange for a vehicle crossover to be constructed at the expense of the applicant."

No dropped kerb = no offence. The work the council would carry out to create a crossing includes hardening the surface and sub-surface to protect what may be underneath it and to resist any subsidence that may occur from the weight of vehicles that the original footpath wasn't built to take. That is why it is illegal for the neighbour to drive across the pavement without the hardening work taking place.

The neighbour may also need to seek planning permission to convert the front from a garden to a drive if the area in question is greater than 5 sq mtrs. To park a car you would need an area of at least 3mtrs (probably 4) by 2

What i dont understand tho is where the Car A is, the drive is no bigger where car B parks, but have a dip, which why i dont block that one, and parked like i did

I think a letter based coversation stating my points, and hopefully a letter stating his points we can come to some sort of agreement that we can both fit both cars on - which is probably easily done, if he decide to park at an angle, and i can sit over the other halfs with my bum up the kerb

He's got no more right then i have, he has no more right then i do

Ziggy

 

[The Beard]

You could be obstructive, but you're far better off reaching an agreement with him. If you haven't already done so you could speak to the council's Highways Department, outline the situation, and ask their advice. There's a very good chance they've dealt with a similar situation in the past.

On the other hand they might tell you to sod off. Let us know how you get on.

 

[AndyRKett]

You're right, I did miss out a chunk of the thread. However, over the years I've been called to countless cases of "Unnecessary Obstruction". Regardless of what you've found the Police will not issue a ticket, nor summons for appearance before the Magistrates. no because under the act they can have the obstruction removed

Lawful access requires that a driver does not break the law. Section 184 that you quote "makes it an offence to drive a vehicle across a footway or verge where there is no proper vehicle crossover. No it doesn't go read it
It also allows for the Highway Authority to arrange for a vehicle crossover to be constructed at the expense of the applicant." the word applicant means that the person has applied for it to be done, otherwise the councile has to serve notice on the tenant that it intends to build a crossing

The work the council would carry out to create a crossing includes hardening the surface and sub-surface to protect what may be underneath it and to resist any subsidence that may occur from the weight of vehicles that the original footpath wasn't built to take. That is why it is illegal for the neighbour to drive across the pavement without the hardening work taking place. this isn't covered anywhere in law other than maybe local bylaws

The neighbour may also need to seek planning permission to convert the front from a garden to a drive if the area in question is greater than 5 sq mtrs. To park a car you would need an area of at least 3mtrs (probably 4) by 2 Only where you plan to cover a previously grassed area of land with a non water permeable hard standing, like concrete, to ensure adequate provisions for drainage are made, in this case the area is already concrete so no alteration needed no need for planning permission

As above

 

[The Beard]

The Police cannot remove a vehicle causing an Unnecessary Obstruction without FIRST issuing a Non-endorsable Fixed Penalty Notice. That issue must be legal and as a result must stand up to scrutiny in the Magistrates' Court. If you can't issue the ticket you can't remove the vehicle. Unless, of course, the circumstances are unusual, for instance the vehicle has been stolen then abandoned. It can be a little more complex than that but that pretty much sums that up.

London Borough of Hounslow:

"It is illegal to drive over grass verges or footpaths unless a dropped kerb, approved and installed by us is in place."

Stevenage Borough Council:

"The Highways Act 1980, Section 184, makes it an offence to drive a vehicle across a footway or verge where there is no proper vehicle crossover. It also allows for the Highway Authority (or its Agent - in this case Stevenage Borough Council) to arrange for a vehicle crossover to be constructed at the expense of the applicant.

Any person who drives a motor vehicle across the pavement or verge without an authorised and properly constructed carriage crossing could cause damage to the surface and kerb, and any underground service cables or pipelines laid beneath the surface. The person responsible for causing the damage would be liable for the cost of repairs."

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead:

"It is against the law for a vehicle to cross a footway other than via a properly constructed crossing."

"Under Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 if you want to construct vehicular access to your property across a public footway and or verge then you need permission from the Highway Authority to do so. If the road is classified (an A, B, or C road) you will need planning permission, which you will need to apply for seperately. There are two main reasons for building a vehicle crossing. Firstly, pavements are designed and constructed for pedestrian use. Persistent driving over or parking on a pavement may cause hazardous potholes or may damage underground cables and pipes, which can be dangerous and costly to repair. Secondly, it is an offence to drive a vehicle over a pavement of verge which is not part of a properly constructed vehicle crossing, and The Council has powers under the Highways Act 1980 to serve a notice on offenders and recover all reasonable costs for building a vehicle crossing."

There are similar, or identical entries from numerous other Councils all quoting the same Section.

 

[The Beard]

As above

Perhaps you'd like to point out where it says that it is perfectly legal to drive across the pavement where the kerb is not lowered.

Of course the word "applicant" means someone has to apply. But then if they don't apply they can't drive over the pavement. And as you point out the Council could serve notice that they intend to do it for themselves, but at the expense of the person driving over the kerb.

Protection of the sub surface is in the interests of every council in the country. It will be in the local by-laws, the operative word there is, of course, -laws.

You are correct of course that if the surface is already concrete or tarmac a planning application is not needed, however, if you look at my quote from Windsor and Maidenhead..............................it is necessary for a dropped kerb to go ahead. Near where I live a householder went to Court to contest the Council's decision that he shouldn't have a dropped kerb. He lost because the Council could show that drainage from the road would be seriously compromised and could cause local flooding.

 

[AndyRKett]

Perhaps you'd like to point out where it says that it is perfectly legal to drive across the pavement where the kerb is not lowered.

in the highways act 1980

Where the occupier of any premises adjoining or having access to a highway maintainable at the public expense habitually takes or permits to be taken a mechanically propelled vehicle across a kerbed footway or a verge in the highway to or from those premises, the highway authority for the highway may, subject to subsection (2) below, serve a notice on the owner and the occupier of the premises—
(a)stating that they propose to execute such works for the construction of a vehicle crossing over the footway or verge as may be specified in the notice; or
(b)imposing such reasonable conditions on the use of the footway or verge as a crossing as may be so specified.

so the point of law is that it is not illegal until the above criteria are met, that is to say that until the local authority state that to continue to drive you car over the kerb and or verge they require a dropped kerb be constructed you can legally drive your car over the kerb or verge

if you read your Windsor and Maidenhead quote and compare it to the word of the law it is actually inaccurate, They can serve notice on you, and do the work and, charge you for the work! OR they can legally impose you do not cross the path/verge and desist or be subject to a fine of no more than £20 for the first offence and £50 for any subsequent offence.

Until you have been served notice by the local authority under section 1 (a)(b) of the highways act 1980 then you are breaking no laws by driving over the path/verge additionally this only applies where the highway is maintainable at the public expense so doesn't apply in an unadopted road or private estate

So if you kept say a motor home in your back garden and the access to get it in and out was to take out a couple of fence panels and drive over the kerb, which you did maybe once or twice a year, then the council might decide not to bother serving notice on the installation of a dropped kerb they might just decide to let it go and only pursue you if you cause damage to the kerb or path.