'Another Stupid Council, One rule for them etc

[Conniff]

A chap in Bromsgrove decided to take his family out to lunch, they parked their car in one of the council-run car parks and put a £I in the machine for the privilege.

When he returned to his car there was a penalty charge on his windscreen for £25. He was 7 minutes late, when you have a couple of kids to control it can take you a little bit longer getting back to your car. (but that is beside the point).

 

This he felt was very hypocritical when, at the same time this car park was taken over by a group of (so called) travellers who were camping in the car park. He thought it would be interesting to see what sort of parking fees or fines they have paid.’

 

So he wrote to the council and asked them why should motorists be fined for over staying by a few minutes when travellers can occupy a car park for months without having to pay a penny?

This is the reply he received.

‘There appears to be some confusion regarding the basis upon which the travellers were on the car park in question.

 

‘The position in respect of any normal user of the car park is that, by entering and parking their vehicle, they are entering into contract with the Council to pay a sum of money in return for the Council allowing them to leave their vehicle for a specific amount of time.

 

If the vehicle is left for longer than the paid for time, no payment is made, or there is a failure to comply with parking regulations, there is, in effect, a breach of contract which entitles the Council to make a penalty charge.

This is the bit I like!!!

 

 

‘In the case of the travellers, they were on the car parks as illegal occupiers and, as such, there was no contract with them as the purpose for which they entered was not permitted.

 

‘In the circumstances the appropriate course of action was not for “breach of contract” but for “illegal occupation”.’

 

So here’s a plan. Since councils will ignore all attempts to stop them screwing the motorist, next time you get a ticket refuse, to pay it on the grounds that you’re not actually ‘parking’. Say that you’re ‘illegally occupying’ the bay for half an hour and therefore the usual rules don’t apply. Let the council’s lawyers pick the bones out of that.

 

Better still, swap your car for a Toyota 4x4 and a caravan and park where the hell you like.

 

 

Full Story ...

 

[Jamberson]

I think the council is dodging the issue with that explanation. I think they could issue PCNs to the travellers if they saw fit, but the consequences of so doing would be great and cause huge potential disruption to those people. I think it's better that the council tries to act in a reasonable way rather than using PCNs laws to punish people who aren't just parked, but actually living in their vehicles. Everyone's gotta live somewhere.

[Conniff]

Everyone's gotta live somewhere.

 

In that case, offer up your back garden.

[Consumer dude]

Live somewhere, but just don't make it permanent. You couldn't make it up..

[Jamberson]

In that case, offer up your back garden.

 

I don't have one.

 

People need space, and it's partly because people don't like living on top of one another that people travel.

[green_and_mean]

If they want to evict them they cannot treat them as 'customers' of the car park, giving them a PCN is fairly pointless as its most probably not going to get paid.

[Conniff]

Being paid isn't the important thing or even giving them a ticket.

 

What would happen if you drove into that carpark, tied your dog to the back bumper and set up gas burner etc and then went off shopping. Can they legally give you a ticket, I think not.

[green_and_mean]

Being paid isn't the important thing or even giving them a ticket.

 

What would happen if you drove into that carpark, tied your dog to the back bumper and set up gas burner etc and then went off shopping. Can they legally give you a ticket, I think not.

 

You seem to have missed the point, the Councils objective is to remove them from the car park not issue pointless PCNs. I'm sure the travellers would prefer to remain in the car park and receive a daily PCN but if that were the case the earliest enforcement would be at the charge certificate stage which is months down the line and that is only if the Council could serve a NTO to the registered keepers address. By treating their occupation as trespass they can be removed in days rather than months.

[Conniff]

I'm not missing the point, forget the travellers.

 

What they are saying is that anyone can enter their carparks and claim they are camping out. They can then come back to the car having had a good shopping trip and maybe dinner somewhere and remove the car as the area isn't suitable.

[green_and_mean]

I'm not missing the point, forget the travellers.

 

What they are saying is that anyone can enter their carparks and claim they are camping out. They can then come back to the car having had a good shopping trip and maybe dinner somewhere and remove the car as the area isn't suitable.

 

Why don't you try it if its such a fool proof idea? I fail to see how the Council is being stupid, surely wasting public money issuing pointless PCNs would be slightly more stupid than evicting them as trespassers?? We had travellers on the local golf course maybe the Council should have taken them to Court for not paying the green fees?

[Conniff]

You really are such a hypocrite.

 

You always have to twist things away from what is being said and get your knickers in a twist.

 

Where did I say it was a fool proof idea. I haven't said I want them to issue pcn against anyone.

[Jamberson]

You did say, "What they are saying is that anyone can enter their carparks and claim they are camping out".

 

I don't think you appreciate that these people are not "claiming" to be doing anything and are not camping out. Their vehicles are their homes. They live in them, and they have to be located somewhere. If you want to pretend to be a traveller to dodge buying a p&d ticket, then you'll get a PCN. But that's not what is happening here.

 

They could issue PCNs and go down the traffic management route to try and force payment, although I doubt it's legal to immobilise someone's home in that way - but I suspect G&M is right in that the council's true motive is to not legally define them as customers but as occupiers of the land. Whatever - the upshot is that PCNs are not appropriate ways to deal with this sort of situation.

[green_and_mean]

You really are such a hypocrite.

 

You always have to twist things away from what is being said and get your knickers in a twist.

 

Where did I say it was a fool proof idea. I haven't said I want them to issue pcn against anyone.

 

I really cannot see the point of your post then? The Council are doing what is required to evict the travellers and return the car park to its intended use, how does this make them 'stupid'?? I'm not being a hypocrite, you posted a story and made several claims to reinforce the Daily Mails view, I'm simply pointing out that as usual the Mail is using the paper to play on the 'publics' fears and ignorance to sell papers. This story is a triple whammy for them as they can attack parking, local authorities and travellers all in the same article but when you look at the facts rather than the headlines its a complete non story.

[lamma]

Every TRO I have seen has included terms which forbade such 'camping out'.

Clear breach so PCNs all round.

Yet it didn't happen.

Conclusions are obvious.

[green_and_mean]

Every TRO I have seen has included terms which forbade such 'camping out'.

Clear breach so PCNs all round.

Yet it didn't happen.

Conclusions are obvious.

 

What contravention code is 'camping where prohibited'??

[TheBogsDollocks]

What contravention code is 'camping where prohibited'??

 

From your comments in a previous post;"The Council are doing what is required to evict the travellers and return the car park to its intended use";I'd say code 95 Parked in a parking place for a purpose other than the designated purpose for the parking place.I understand why the council are reluctant to serve PCN's but a council has a duty to act fairly and proportionally. Not to serve PCN's is to discriminate against non travellers. Chances are the vehicles may not be DVLA registered but that could be the case with any vehicle. I think PCN's should be served as clearly the vehicles are parking in contravention of the order by not paying. A lifestyle choice should not make you immune from the laws.

[lamma]

What contravention code is 'camping where prohibited'??

'camping out' in single quotes.

As you well know TROs contain several clauses related to the activities under that shorthand umbrella phrase. The clue is in the word "terms" - plural.

We are here to help. Thankfully tdb has posted in the true spirit of the board.

[Jamberson]

Not to serve PCN's is to discriminate against non travellers.

 

Yes it is, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that all forms of discrimination are negative or should be undone. Entitlement to pensions, for example, is discriminatory on age grounds. There are countless forms of discrimination, so it doesn't really mean anything to identify one.

 

A lifestyle choice should not make you immune from the laws.

 

It's not so much immunity as an issue of how to best handle the situation. You could handle it by issuing PCNs, but in my view that would be inflamatory, if not illegal - the vehicles are people's homes. How would you feel if someone slapped PCNs on your living room window?

 

By the way, there's no reason to think these vehicles are not DVLA registered - that's just prejudice surfacing.

 

The problem travellers have is that almost every square inch of land is owned or controlled by someone else, so they have few places to go. Couple that with the fact that so many people think their rights are of much greater importance than travellers' rights, and you have a serious issue to deal with. At the end of the day, they might be blocking off parking spaces, but there are more important things at stake, like the rights of people to live their lives free from persecution.

[lamma]

So education is discriminatory on age grounds. As is driving, buying alcohol and voting.

Good luck with that.

[Jamberson]

Yes it is. Exactly my point. Discrimination is a normal part of everyday life and usually not problematic. It only becomes problematic when, for example, it means a section of society become marginalised.

 

I used to run the Blue Badge office in Brighton, and once an able-bodied person accused me of discriminating against him for not letting him have a blue badge. I had to agree. I was discriminating on the basis of his ability, which was entirely appropriate in that situation.