# Signage for 'No Motor Caravan' parking - legality?



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

I am posting below a link to Andy Strangeways's campaign against illegal and unenforceable signs purporting to prevent parking of 'Motor Caravans'

His campaign is concentrated in Yorkshire, but the logic in the link below could apply wherever the signage is used.

https://andystrangeway.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/95-of-motor-caravans-unticketable/

I suggest everyone interested in using the logic checks their own V5C to find out what is entered at para. 'J'

Mine for one is blank at J.

Geoff


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

nicholsong said:


> I suggest everyone interested in using the logic checks their own V5C to find out what is entered at para. 'J'
> 
> Mine for one is blank at J.
> 
> Geoff


So is my big bugger :laugh:

tony


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

It wont stop someone giving you a ticket though. It would then be up to you to go through the rigmarole of appealing against it.

This Strangeway chap has made it his mission in life to be a "council botherer" campaigning for motorhomes to be able to park everywhere which is odd as he doesnt even own a motorhome. On the wildcamping forum some including myself didnt like his heavy handed tactics with the Scottish councils where it was agreed there wasnt a problem in the first place and best not to create one. This and some questions about his motives when a donate button appeared on his website led to him throwing his toys out of the pram, leaving the forum and threatening to sue the forum owner if all his posts were not removed. You cannot even mention his name on wildcamping now. Very strange indeed.

I am all for councils providing places for motorhomes to park but I dont agree with his tactics.


----------



## charlieivan (Apr 25, 2006)

His efforts have resulted in the no motorhome parking signs being removed in Scarborough and Whitby so far and possibly other places also. He has been very active and contributes regularly on facebook via the motorcaravanners club.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

AFAIK he has successfully removed the signs in Scarborough and Whitby but the bans that have been intorduced are fairly wide-spread and have been passed as bye-laws.....

It is only the signage that currently has not been approved.....

Dave


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

I would look at it as a restriction rather than a ban,Maybe they should be asked if their local businesses would benefit it it was changed to a 48hr parking restriction, no return within 7 days or such instead.
I wonder what would happen with a blue disabled badge displayed.


cabby


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

Mine was blank too. 

All the weight questions are also left blank (it's 6tonne) 

I also noticed on the line above unde vehicle category ie wheel plan it says "3-AXLE-RIGID BODY".

Now mine is not! It has 2 axles with twin wheels on the rear one.

Would you bother contacting Swansea? 

Dick


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Maybe I should not have mentioned Andy Strangeways name, because this thread is not about dicussing him or his campaign, some of which I also have trouble with, but I thought it was fair to acknowledge the source of the document.

The thread is about the logic that, if a vehicle is not described in the V5C para 'J Vehicle Category', it therefore cannot by law be identified as being a 'Motor Caravan', because it is not Category 'M' as required by the EU Directive for a Motor Caravan.

If this logic stands up in law then, whatever the bye-laws, and resulting signage say about 'Motor Caravans', Councils anywhere will be defeated by the lack of description in the V5C.

As Barry has pointed out, that does not stop a ticket being issued, but maybe a display of the text in my link above might be a deterrent.- if 'Jobsworths' can be deterred? Of course one has the hassle of appealing, but maybe after a few succesful ones Councils might(?) change their policies. Even to the point of providing 'Aires' maybe.

The reason I take an interest in this subject is that a 'white van' or a truck could park, and the driver sleep in the vehicle, in some of these places, but Councils are trying to single out Motor Caravans as being unacceptable in the same places. I deem ths unequitable and discriminatory and wish to resist it.

Geoff


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Point taken Geoff, but unfortunately the "Duck Rule" applies to most traffic wardens, local councils, householders who overlook dubiously parked motorhomes, etc.

_(If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . don't argue the toss. It's a duck!!)_

I can't see how we will ever get over that in the real and practical world.

Dave


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Zebedee said:


> Point taken Geoff, but unfortunately the "Duck Rule" applies to most traffic wardens, local councils, householders who overlook dubiously parked motorhomes, etc.
> 
> _(If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . don't argue the toss. It's a duck!!)_
> 
> ...


Dave

That point had occurred to me, which is why I suggested that putting the notice in the window, maybe along with a copy of one's V5C might educate them - or at least confuse them:wink2::laugh:

Geoff


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

I doubt the traffic warden would give it a second glance Geoff. Even if they do they will still slap a ticket on and as for councils providing aires because we have found a dubious loop hole via the V5 they wont do that either. If anything they will change the wording. Some already do to "No sleeping or eating in vehicles". How they would check if your asleep or not Im not really sure.

Remember though that if you see a no camping, no overnight parking sign in order for it to be official it has to have a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) on it displayed for it to be legal. Often found on the back. 

Personally if I see an official looking no overnight parking sign I generally wouldnt park there but have done if there has been nowhere else to go or it was getting late etc.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Barry

It is just the' anarchist', as opposed to the 'Rule-of-Law', side of me which objects to jumped-up Councillors and their employees trying to create rules which delegated legislation does not authorise, partly out of their own ignorance of the Primary law and partly out of arrogance, and in some cases self-interest.

This syndrome seems far more prevalent in local Councils than Central Government, maybe because the scrutiny by the public and press is so much less.

I believe that the pressure to 'devolve' powers to regions and local administrations should be balanced with equal scrutiny of those powers. An example being that many of the signs under this topic should have been approved by Central Government but were not - why did not DfT monitor the powers they had delegated? 

I would not object to a legal 'No Overnight Parking' Notice/Sign if it applied to all vehicles and not just Motor Caravans.

Geoff


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Self builder seek to have motor caravan on the V5, not looked at mine yet.


----------



## Landyman (Apr 3, 2010)

Just looked on my V5 and j is left blank but at D.3 Body Type it says Motor Caravan.

I'm doomed.........:crying:


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Landyman said:


> Just looked on my V5 and j is left blank but at D.3 Body Type it says Motor Caravan.
> 
> I'm doomed.........:crying:


Richard

As I said above my 'J' is blank.

You said D.3 Body Type - maybe that was a typo because I have D.5 as Body Type, and mine shows Motor Caravan.

However the law refers to 'Vehicle category' which is para 'J', and is where there should be an entry to comply with the EU Directive.

Kev

Considering what I have written above, in reply to Richard, where on the V5C do self-builders seek to have 'Motor Caravan' recorded?

Geoff


----------



## maureenandtom (May 1, 2005)

barryd said:


> I doubt the traffic warden would give it a second glance Geoff. Even if they do they will still slap a ticket on and as for councils providing aires because we have found a dubious loop hole via the V5 they wont do that either. If anything they will change the wording. Some already do to "No sleeping or eating in vehicles". How they would check if your asleep or not Im not really sure.
> 
> *Remember though that if you see a no camping, no overnight parking sign in order for it to be official it has to have a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) on it displayed for it to be legal. Often found on the back. *
> 
> Personally if I see an official looking no overnight parking sign I generally wouldnt park there but have done if there has been nowhere else to go or it was getting late etc.


Hi Barry,

I'm not at all sure that is true. I think it is one of those myths that became true because it was said often enough. If you can find the regulation that says the TRO must be quoted then I'd like to know of it. I can't find it.

What I do know to be true, though, is that parking has been decriminalised and that councils deal with parking offences by issuing a Penalty Charge Notice. There is a list of PCN codes which can be used by councils; if the PCN code does not exist then neither does the offence.

Here is the list of codes available to the council:

http://www.newparkinglaws.co.uk/post/PCN-Contravention-Codes

Tom


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

maureenandtom said:


> Hi Barry,
> 
> I'm not at all sure that is true. I think it is one of those myths that became true because it was said often enough. If you can find the regulation that says the TRO must be quoted then I'd like to know of it. I can't find it.
> 
> ...


From what I remember though it was discussed at length on the wildies forum and I thought it was the case that signs put up by councils stating no overnight parking or no camping have no legal standing without a TRO. There has been a tendency for them to put them up, often from pressure from local campsites or Mr Angry from Acacia Avenue but they mean nothing.


----------



## maureenandtom (May 1, 2005)

barryd said:


> From what I remember though it was discussed at length on the wildies forum and I thought it was the case that signs put up by councils stating no overnight parking or no camping have no legal standing without a TRO. There has been a tendency for them to put them up, often from pressure from local campsites or Mr Angry from Acacia Avenue but they mean nothing.


That's right. No TRO = no legal standing. As I see it, and as I guess Andy S sees it, it's a fraud on everybody, motorists, residents, tax-payers if councils put up signs with no legal backing. It's a long standing argument about whether the public should allow councils to do this. Andy S has been successful in getting such signs removed not just in Scotland but all over. In Scarborough there are now over 300 overnight parking places available to us that were previously unavailable if we obeyed the signs. Royal Albert Drive is now available. It was previously denied us.

What I meant to say above was that the absence of a TRO authority on the sign does not make the sign invalid; at least that's what I believe A sign can be valid even without the authority for it displayed - that's what I believe. But ... the council can't make up and enforce an offence - there has to be a PCN code for enforcement. The council can say "No Sleeping/Eating" but if there's no PCN code it can't be enforced.

I can give an example.

There used to be a PCN code for the offence of cooking, camping, sleeping. I successfully appealed against a ticket I got for it - PCN Code 11. Soon after my successful appeal, PCN Code 11 disappeared and was reallocated to a different offence. There is now no offence of cooking, camping, sleeping. - because there is no PCN Code. There may be a different offence if the council can find one - but not cooking, camping, sleeping.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> Richard
> 
> As I said above my 'J' is blank.
> 
> ...


Good question Geoff, I'm not sure to be honest, but the covering letter states change of vehicle type to motor caravan and it comes back as such, but as the van is now gone I cannot check in which section it appears, but I'll email Ben the new owner and ask him to look, possibly get a picture.

Here's mine for the currant van


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

Penquin said:


> AFAIK he has successfully removed the signs in Scarborough and Whitby but the bans that have been intorduced are fairly wide-spread and have been passed as bye-laws.....
> 
> It is only the signage that currently has not been approved.....
> 
> Dave


This quote is incorrect.

He got the TRO completely removed on a number of streets (not all) in Scarborough and Whitby. The TRO was in place because hoteliers allegedly had the TRO originally granted because the vans parked at night ruined the sea view! On appeal the TRO was removed as it was accepted that there was no sea view in the dark of night.

Signs were not removed between the expiry of one order and the implementation of a new one on other areas and they were not removed in a timely manner after the order was quashed on the areas mentioned above.


----------



## Telbell (May 1, 2005)

I cannot believe for a minute that just because D of T or DVLA decide to leave the heading "vehicle category" blank, on a V5C , then it becomes "uncategorised" or is not Category M, and therefore is not a Motor Caravan.

There are many headings on my V5C which are left blank.,.,.eg "Engine Number" (so does that mean it doesn't have an engine...or a number??) and "Type Approval Number" (so the vehicle has never been authorised as a "Type"??)

Well, yes it has because under the heading"Body Type" it shows "Motor Caravan"....and if the vehicle has the features outlined by the DVLA/DofT then it is a "Motor Caravan". End of.

Sorry but in my view the self appointed crusader in this case is clutching at straws. If I were foolish enough to try and defend a case of illegal parking purely on the basis of the vehicle not being a Motor Caravan, the Prosecutor need only to refer the adjudicator to Section D5 of my V5C.

"De Minimus Non Curat Lex"


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Telbell said:


> I cannot believe for a minute that just because D of T or DVLA decide to leave the heading "vehicle category" blank, on a V5C , then it becomes "uncategorised" or is not Category M, and therefore is not a Motor Caravan.
> 
> There are many headings on my V5C which are left blank.,.,.eg "Engine Number" (so does that mean it doesn't have an engine...or a number??) and "Type Approval Number" (so the vehicle has never been authorised as a "Type"??)
> 
> ...


It wouldn't be a judge usually but a solicitor in an office who decision the council will accept, same for any other parking offence appeal.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Telbell said:


> I cannot believe for a minute that just because D of T or DVLA decide to leave the heading "vehicle category" blank, on a V5C , then it becomes "uncategorised" or is not Category M, and therefore is not a Motor Caravan.
> 
> There are many headings on my V5C which are left blank.,.,.eg "Engine Number" (so does that mean it doesn't have an engine...or a number??) and "Type Approval Number" (so the vehicle has never been authorised as a "Type"??)
> 
> ...


I am not familiar with the history of Parking Adjudicators decisons, but they are probably not bound by legal decisions. As far as I know there is no 'prosecutor' only the original PCN and the appeal by the motorist.

If the matter came to a Court of Law then the prosecuting Authority, i.e. the Local Council, would have to prove its case. Since the EU Directive refers to 'Category ' MI consider they would have to prove the vehicle came within that Category, which might prove to be a difficult evidential burden if para 'J' is blank.

Your quoting Para D.5 showing 'Body Type' 'Motor Caravan' might be partly persuasive, but not conclusive, since the EU definition has more parameters.

In practice, I doubt whether the Local Council would risk taking it that far with the risk of losing, at least on an individual case, unless they wanted to take it on a test case. But remember one case in a lower court is not a precedent, unless confirmed in a superior court, so what would they achieve, unless they won in the court of first instance and the defendant subsequently appealed?

Are Councils really acting in the local taxpayers' interest in spending so much money on cases where they may be proved to be incompetent in issuing the PCN in the first place, in the light of defects in the original TROs, non-approval by the DfT and defective signage?

Geoff


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

It has probably been posted already, but I was sent this link which makes interesting reading as regards Motor Caravans / Motor Homes or whatever....

Department for Transport advice

I wonder how quickly Councils will rspond or will they simply overlook what it says.....

Dave


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Penquin said:


> It has probably been posted already, but I was sent this link which makes interesting reading as regards Motor Caravans / Motor Homes or whatever....
> 
> Department for Transport advice
> 
> ...


Dave

I received the same.

I wanted to quote the exact text of the DfT e-mail. I asked Andy Strangeways for a link to that text, i.e. without his topping and tailing and, maybe editing of their text in full.

He was not forthcoming with a direct link to their e-mail.

I will try to contact the DfT tomorrow directly.

Geoff


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

nicholsong said:


> I wanted to quote the exact text of the DfT e-mail. I asked Andy Strangeways for a link to that text, i.e. without his topping and tailing and, maybe editing of their text in full.
> 
> He was not forthcoming with a direct link to their e-mail.
> 
> ...


It will be interesting to read a reply from them, if it turns out NOT to be genuine then his credibility will be shot to ribbons so I genuinely hope that DfT come back rapidly with the exact phrase and preferably the same e-mail.....

I seriously doubt that anyone would set out to deceive by forging such an e-mail UNLESS the whole e-mail was a fraud sent by someone determined to destroy Andy's reputation......

But surely no-one in Government or the Civil Service would EVER stoop to such a thing would they? Would they?

The silence is deafening.....

Dave


----------



## maureenandtom (May 1, 2005)

My motorhome doesn't meet the definition stated by N Yorks in their TRO. It doesn't have a table capable of being rigidly fixed to the living compartment. Nor is it registered as Category M. It is entirely reasonable for some to argue these two things do not matter and I'll listen to those arguments but it won't stop me using the discrepancies on appeal if I should get a PCN from the enforcing authority. It will then be up to the traffic adjudicator to tell me the definition of a motor home need not be taken seriously. 


It occurs to me that if an argument can be presented that my motorhome does not need to meet the definition used by N Yorks to commit an offence in their eyes then what is the point of having a definition?. What more can be taken from it? It does not need sleeping accommodation? It does not need cooking facilities? How much more can be stripped from the definition until a definition is not necessary? No need to prove you have committed an offence - enough that authority says you have.


In fact why bother to draft laws at all? Just accept the word of the authority that an offence has been committed. 


I don't like arguments which use words like “self appointed crusader” and the rest of an argument becomes suspect when such words are used in a way designed to denigrate the person rather than debate his argument.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

You could of course take the view that perhaps they don't want to have Mohos parked in certain places, it's not our property, we do not pay for it's upkeep, perhaps we should not park there.

We don't have a god given right to park where we like do we.


Just saying.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Kev_n_Liz said:


> You could of course take the view that perhaps they don't want to have Mohos parked in certain places, it's not our property, we do not pay for it's upkeep, perhaps we should not park there.
> 
> We don't have a god given right to park where we like do we.
> 
> Just saying.


Kev

It is a basic principle of English Common Law that what has not been prohibited by Statute or by the Courts is permitted, so there is a presumption that there is a right, not given by God, to park unless prohibited.

Any prohibition has to be properly enacted according to the Primary Legislation enabling authorities, whether central government departments, empowering them to make Orders in Council, or for local authorities to issue Secondary Legislation such as TROs or bye-laws, which must properly comply with the provisions of the Primary Legislation. Failure to do so renders the rules liable to challenge and unenforcable.

As for the idea that one should not park where one has not paid for the upkeep of the road, that is a bit of nonsense, since it would follow that one could not drive in any town on roads maintained by the local council, as opposed to the Highways Agency, where one has not paid Council Tax - i.e. everywhere except where one lives:wink2::laugh:

Geoff


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> Kev
> 
> It is a basic principle of English Common Law that what has not been prohibited by Statute or by the Courts is permitted, so there is a presumption that there is a right, not given by God, to park unless prohibited.
> 
> ...


Thanks Geoff, I was posting a bit tongue in cheek though, I just take the view that enforceable or not I'd not park where I'm not wanted, more accurately I won't overnight where I'm not wanted, on the basis that I would not like a Moho parked outside our house just because there is no sign, I think a bit of common sense needs to be applied.


----------



## BrianJP (Sep 17, 2010)

I would think all the council would have to do is change the design of the sign to look like those appearing in some Spanish resorts where instead of using the words Motorhome they just have picture of one under the times they are banned. You can't really argue with that


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

I would be well pee'd off if someone came and parked a motorhome in front of my house so I can imagine how it would be if it was vice-versa.

I make the presumption that if someone has gone to the bother of putting a sign up saying I'm not welcome in my van then that's what they think. If so I would rather go elsewhere. How can it be relaxing to be parked up wondering if someone is going to slap a ticket on my windscreen that I'm then going to have to contest? 

In my mind that's not what motorhoming is about although I accept that if people don't defend one's rights then they will be lost.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Kev_n_Liz said:


> Thanks Geoff, I was posting a bit tongue in cheek though, I just take the view that enforceable or not I'd not park where I'm not wanted, more accurately I won't overnight where I'm not wanted, on the basis that I would not like a Moho parked outside our house just because there is no sign, I think a bit of common sense needs to be applied.


Kev

I totally agree about not parking outside houses, although vans and trucks do, and I do not do it.

However some of these councils have been trying to enforce parking restrictions away from houses, e.g. in beach CPs and for MHs only and not vans.

Some of the reasons put forward for the bans are spurious, e.g. bans from 2300-0600 based on 'blocking a sea view'.

There have also been undeclared financial connections between some Councillors promoting the bans and local Commercial Campsites, some of which have resulted in resignations.

Regardless of this, it is right and proper that authorities with power to make restrictions should do so within their authorised limits and not on a whim to suit local pressure groups, and certainly not by discriminating against what vehicles they think should not be allowed, when those vehicles cannot be properly identified by law.

Geoff


----------



## Telbell (May 1, 2005)

I too have asked Andy S to provide the full details of the email and he refused stating "everyone who knows me will say I am honest"

I'm always suspicious of people who have an agenda being selective in their production of so-called "evidence"

I'd be interested to hear whta Geoff gets back from DofT


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

peribro said:


> I would be well pee'd off if someone came and parked a motorhome in front of my house so I can imagine how it would be if it was vice-versa.
> 
> I make the presumption that if someone has gone to the bother of putting a sign up saying I'm not welcome in my van then that's what they think. If so I would rather go elsewhere. How can it be relaxing to be parked up wondering if someone is going to slap a ticket on my windscreen that I'm then going to have to contest?
> 
> In my mind that's not what motorhoming is about although I accept that if people don't defend one's rights then they will be lost.


Peter

You posted while I was typing, so please see my response to Kev above.

Re one's rights, I agree and especially when they are being eroded by dubious means, without proper procedures and not in accordance with their authority by a few local self-important councillors acting without due diligence and proper oversight.

I should point out that I have parked opposite another person's house. My house in London is in a terraced street with no off-street parking. There are blocks of flats at one end of the street, so the ratio of parking places to residents is low, so one parks where one can.

I prefer to park outside my own house, or my immediate neighbours', who do not mind, then I can run an EHU from the upstairs window down the lampost to the MH. Otherwise I try to park alongside flank walls at the end of the road. Sometimes neither has been possible, so I have taken a space outside another house - either that or park the same way in a road where I do not live.

Geoff


----------



## Telbell (May 1, 2005)

"I don't like arguments which use words like “self appointed crusader....."

Sorry if you don't like it, but to anyone who checks out his webpage and follows him in any way , there's no doubt that he is on a crusade.

And I see no record of meetings which suggest he is other than "Self appointed" but if he;s managed to get other people to elect him as a leader then I'll happily change that to "appointed crusader"

Irrespective of that, like others, I disagree on the methodology he's adopted on his "crusade"


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

I think a lot of these restrictions are not caused by the likes of us descending in hoards and filling up car parks and dumping our rubbish and black water everywhere, but our Gypsy community's who descend and take over the same places we would like to stay, except they do leave a mess and all the cost to Councils to clear it up, along with all the hassle of getting them moved on!..

So maybe it is not us at all?.

ray.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Telbell said:


> "I don't like arguments which use words like "self appointed crusader....."
> 
> Sorry if you don't like it, but to anyone who checks out his webpage and follows him in any way , there's no doubt that he is on a crusade.
> 
> ...


I understand what you are saying, but AS has attracted subscriptions and he has arranged protest meetings of several MHs, photos of which he has posted. Maybe he has not formalised the campaign in a legal sense - AFAIK it is not a Club or Charity. Maybe he should consider that to satisfy the likes of you.

I have been one critic of his tactics, but I am also a critic of some of the language and media tactics of some of the Councillors and Officers of the Councils involved. Maybe one has to fight fire with fire.

However, the results so far indicate that various Councils are backing-off, by removing signs, failing to enforce what they have, in the past, maintained were infringements of TROs, and/or refused to answer questions. These collective actions indicate to me that they are unspoken admissions that they are in the wrong on several matters.

Geoff


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 21, 2005)

We, being committed Europeans, are following the French tactic of challenging councils, on grounds of discrimination, who prohibit the parking of motorhomes .

It has been repeatedly argued successfully in French courts that a motorhome (camping-car) cannot be singled out for parking restrictions and courts have upheld that any parking restrictions must be based on environmental grounds like the size or weight of a vehicle or the need to prevent restrictions of traffic flows.
It has been made abundantly clear in many court cases taken Click Here For Example that parking restriction must be duly justified with regard to traffic needs and concern all vehicles of the same size, mass and weight and singling out motorhomes for particular treatment is not acceptable.

We now have some councils who have accepted that motorhomes cannot be restricted from parking where the parking of other vehicles of similar size/weight are not restricted.

One can also look to A person the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> We, being committed Europeans, are following the French tactic of challenging councils, on grounds of discrimination, who prohibit the parking of motorhomes .
> 
> *We now have some councils *who have accepted that motorhomes cannot be restricted from parking where the parking of other vehicles of similar size/weight are not restricted.
> https://www.liberty-human-rights.or.../article-1-first-protocol-protection-property


Jean-Luc

As I said before: Good to have you back with your useful contributions.

When you say in my boldened bit of text above, 'some councils', are you referring EU wide or particularly in Ireland?

Geoff


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> *I understand what you are saying, but AS has attracted subscriptions and he has arranged protest meetings of several MHs, photos of which he has posted.* Maybe he has not formalised the campaign in a legal sense - AFAIK it is not a Club or Charity. Maybe he should consider that to satisfy the likes of you.
> 
> I have been one critic of his tactics, but I am also a critic of some of the language and media tactics of some of the Councillors and Officers of the Councils involved. Maybe one has to fight fire with fire.
> 
> ...


Why though? As I have mentioned before, he doesn't even have a motorhome! When he did his "Direct Action" campaign in Whitby and Scarborough he went and kipped in the back of a car to prove his point and told the council he would be doing it.  Eh?

I dont want to knock someone who is fighting for rights for motorhomers but I dont understand his personal motives. I also as said do not like his tactics either.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Barry

I think he got involved in campaigns as a result of falling foul of an 'No overnight sleeping' ban while sleeping in his car. He then found that he had common cause with motorhomers.

Geoff


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 21, 2005)

nicholsong said:


> Jean-Luc
> 
> As I said before: Good to have you back with your useful contributions.
> 
> ...


Here in Ireland, for example Waterford Council have removed any references to motorhomes in their latest parking regulations for the city & county, motorhomes may now park legally at any place a car or other vehicle may park.


----------



## maureenandtom (May 1, 2005)

Jean-Luc, 


That's my aim here in England too. I have no car; my motorhome is my only motor vehicle. I understand that parking might have to be restricted because of, for example, weight where a car park surface might not be strong enough - but not for reasons of what might go on inside my vehicle, like sleeping. My vehicle is a car - which is used for all the purposes of a car but with other capabilities.



Hi Telbell,


Some obviously have a great personal dislike for the man. I accept that. I've never met him but I think I rather like him - having a whisky named after him impressed me and it pleases me that a local politician supports overnight parking for motorhomes.


Can you tell me, though, what part of his adopted methodology you, like others, disagree about? He seems, so far, to have achieved his aims using his methods - and without failures. There's nothing underhand about what he he does - strange in a politician, that; tells the councils what he's going to do and does it. And not as a lone crusader but with motorhomers' support.


We now have some overnight parking freedoms we didn't have so that must be good. Has he done harm? Have we lost freedoms we had before he became active? He's a Councillor at parish level and the opinions and actions of democratic representatives are probably at least locally influential; I'm pleased he's on our side. Do you think people like him should not be involved in local politics or should he perhaps restrict himself to council meetings?


But more important than anything else ... can you suggest sucessful methods more acceptable to you than his? 



Tom


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

I have been on a protest with Andy, have been for a pint with him also, yes it did seem strange he put all the effort into rights of motorhomers when he isn't one, however he has been doing it for years and has had results.
I think he enjoys annoying councilors who he feels play the game for their own benefits while making out that they are doing it for the benefits of others.

Yes Andy could be considered to be a bit eccentric by many people, but I'm pretty sure that what he does he does with the intention of putting wrongs to right. He has had right goes at councilors, MPs and the Police. I have never read anywhere that he has committed any kind or illegal or criminal acts, and with all the newspaper and TV coverage he has had I'm pretty sure that if he had ever done anything wrong the press would have been informed.

Keep it up Andy


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

peribro said:


> I would be well pee'd off if someone came and parked a motorhome in front of my house so I can imagine how it would be if it was vice-versa.
> 
> I make the presumption that if someone has gone to the bother of putting a sign up saying I'm not welcome in my van then that's what they think.


The areas I know of, and have been to are not residential.

I don't presume the same as you, however as a certain councilor who was involved with the bans had interests in a caravan site locally I presume he was doing it for his own interests.

Secondly the original ban was on environmental grounds i.e the dumping of black waste. But when the council was requested to give proof they said they had only "anecdotal evidence." Next thing the ban was changed to supposedly protect the sea view for hoteliers. This was strange as the ban is at night during the dark so no sea view existed at night. Some of the roads were at the bottom of a cliff with the hotels around 100ft above, so the ban on these roads was removed at an appeal.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

Didn't this Andy guy make his name fighting Fiat and their refusal to acknowledge the reverse juddering problem? How did he get on? If he beat them he has my faith.

Dick


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Glandwr said:


> Didn't this Andy guy make his name fighting Fiat and their refusal to acknowledge the reverse juddering problem? How did he get on? If he beat them he has my faith.


That was Andy Stoddard I think Dick.


----------



## emmbeedee (Oct 31, 2008)

peribro said:


> That was Andy Stoddard I think Dick.


You're both wrong, its actually Andy STOTHERT.


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

The good thing is that as he is not a motorhomer he can campaign without being accused of doing it for his own benefit!


----------

