Pitlochry Aire no more. (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

IF the signs say parking allowed for hgvs overnight and doesn't include the word " unoccupied" then if we are parked up and no awning or chairs out then Im parked and not camped.

It doesn't matter what the sign says though, it is the parking order that matters not the sign. All the sign need say is something like "Vehicles must be parked in accordance with the parking order", that is sufficient. Under the law in the UK habitation of a vehicle is camping not parking, especially where (as is the case in PKC car parks) there are restrictions on habitation activities.

 

[GJH]

Whether Paid for or not, LGV parking would normally allow overnight sleeping, for the reason`s I supplied. And the sign IMPLIES the use of the (other) i.e. Ferry Road parking facility by LGV`s. If anyone actually knows different?.

Pete

Whilst the argument for overnight sleeping areas for LGV drivers is a good one it isn't the case that LGV parking would "normally" allow overnight sleeping is it? There is no duty on councils to provide such facilities (unless anyone actually knows different).

 

[irnbru]

Thanks @GJH but I can hardly see a sign saying that without displaying the parking order. How would folk know if its ok to park ir not.
I get what you are saying about the legality of the wording but unless its something the every day person takes a concern in then they will go with the sign.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Thanks @GJH but I can hardly see a sign saying that without displaying the parking order. How would folk know if its ok to park ir not.
I get what you are saying about the legality of the wording but unless its something the every day person takes a concern in then they will go with the sign.

I can assure you that there are signs with similar wording all over the country. It would be impossible to include the full parking order in any sign so all signs just give a partial summary.
Folks know whether it is OK to park or not by checking fully beforehand and by assuming that what they want to do is not allowed unless they have verified that it is.
As in all cases, ignorance of the law is no defence.

 

[GJH]

May I suggest that those who have stayed overnight in Pitlochry car parks get together (by PM/e-mail) and put together a document summarising the economic benefits to the town in terms of how much they spent. That document could then be forwarded to the council by one of the people involved to make a case for allowing overnight camping in their car parks.

 

[PeteH]

and by assuming that what they want to do is not allowed unless they have verified that it is.

Surely that runs counter to English common law?, when and where , as I understand it, Nothing is Proscribed, unless actually "posted", and or has been the subject of a legal decision?, and you are innocent until proven guilty?.

Unlike, "Napoleonic law" (so called) where nothing is permitted unless sanctioned by the "state", (the basis on which "A" frames are barred in parts of Europe) and the presumption of guilt, requires the defendant to prove innocence?.

Pete

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Surely that runs counter to English common law?, when and where , as I understand it, Nothing is Proscribed, unless actually "posted", and or has been the subject of a legal decision?, and you are innocent until proven guilty?.

Unlike, "Napoleonic law" (so called) where nothing is permitted unless sanctioned by the "state", (the basis on which "A" frames are barred in parts of Europe) and the presumption of guilt, requires the defendant to prove innocence?.

Pete

No, it doesn't run counter at all. The necessary legislation prohibiting the action is in place (the parking order). If somebody breaches a prohibition because they don't make the effort to check that doesn't mean they are innocent.

 

[Boringfrog]

I thought it was new lyrics in The Proclaimers song, Letter to America, as in
Sunderland no more
Pitlochry (aire) no more.
I sure you canny Scots can find out the reason.

Errrrrr, less the Sunderland nee moor it's Sutherland .......

 

[GJH]

Errrrrr, less the Sunderland nee moor it's Sutherland .......

Aaaawwwwwwwwwwwww and I was starting to live in hope

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[EX51SSS]

Errrrrr, less the Sunderland nee moor it's Sutherland .......

Yes, it was the auto correct. Didn't work out there's a place Sutherland. The though was there even if spelling wasn't, eh?

 

[Puddleduck]

Thanks @GJH but I can hardly see a sign saying that without displaying the parking order. How would folk know if its ok to park ir not.
I get what you are saying about the legality of the wording but unless its something the every day person takes a concern in then they will go with the sign.

When we were in Perth the sign said "60 hours free" or something like that. It was a Saturday. I went and asked at the office about sleeping overnight and they said lots of people did but they had no idea about the traffic order. Because it was Saturday there was no one at the council office. We decided to risk it but to be very quiet and discrete. Once the boy and girl racers had gone home we had a very quiet and peaceful night.

When we got home I did phone the council to enquire and was told that the order said no sleeping or cooking in vehicles vehicles plus other restrictions I can't remember. They were very pleasant and helpful - and also said that people did picnic there even though it was officially not allowed (the car park is at the long distance bus interchange). I got the distinct impression that the traffic order was in place so that the council could clear people off if the need ever arose rather than being strictly enforced. However the order IS in place and if you do overnight there you do so at your own risk. Abuse would mean the order was enforced with possible fines etc.

May I suggest that those who have stayed overnight in Pitlochry car parks get together (by PM/e-mail) and put together a document summarising the economic benefits to the town in terms of how much they spent. That document could then be forwarded to the council by one of the people involved to make a case for allowing overnight camping in their car parks.

I wrote to Perhshire Chamber of Commerce after we had stayed there sending copies of some of the receipts of local spend.

Victoria Unite
Saltire House,
3 Whitefriars Crescent
Perth
United Kingdom
PH2 0PA

I also told the people at the theatre and restaurant why we were there, how great it was and that we would not have gone had it not been for the motorhome parking facility.



If Ferry Road is okay for over-night we would go back. If there is no longer any over night allowance we would go on somewhere to were it was permitted.

 

[Puddleduck]

Oh so its you thats to blame then
Cant like your post if it had no camping signs...Aaah but did it have no parking ones?

I think you were allowed to park - and there were motorhomes there, mostly foreign.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[madgeD]

So if your eating out or buying fish and chips as we did at Jedbrugh all your doing is boiling a kettle I don't suppose anyone would object to that.

Athol road car park Pitlochry is in M.H Parkings and states a fee of E4.60

 

[gus-lopez]

Thanks @GJH but I can hardly see a sign saying that without displaying the parking order. How would folk know if its ok to park ir not.
I get what you are saying about the legality of the wording but unless its something the every day person takes a concern in then they will go with the sign.

Exactly !
If it isn't on the notice then I'm certainly not hunting down "parking notices" at council offices unless someone is paying me large sums of money for the time taken in doing it. How can a foreigner be expected to know that was it on the sign is not what he can actually do ?

I can assure you that there are signs with similar wording all over the country. It would be impossible to include the full parking order in any sign so all signs just give a partial summary.
Folks know whether it is OK to park or not by checking fully beforehand and by assuming that what they want to do is not allowed unless they have verified that it is.
As in all cases, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Ridiculous . Who in there right mind is going to do that ?

No, it doesn't run counter at all. The necessary legislation prohibiting the action is in place (the parking order). If somebody breaches a prohibition because they don't make the effort to check that doesn't mean they are innocent.

It isn't my job to check but there job to inform me. You don't work for them, they are employed by you.

 

[DigglyDog]

Seems to be a trend in Scotland - we've recently toured around and found that MH's are no longer as welcome as they were. We've found SNT car parks with new height barriers at starting points for walking the West Highland Way and some of the Monroes, and overnight parking restrictions everywhere from Leven to John O'Groats..

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Imbiber]

I find it bizarre that the overnighting parking of vehicles is always seen as the issue / excuse / stick to beat us with argument. Unless the car park is a 24 hour car park with a fee structure to match, why do they bother making such a fuss about out-of-hours parking?

Why should it be one vehicle could park and another not?

Parking a vehicle overnight in a car park that charges a fee from 8am till 6pm has nothing whatsoever to do with the parking charges, so what is the problem?

Speaking from experince of Pitlochry, I did note that on our stay the bays attributed to caravans and motorhomes filled up quickly and subsequently motorhomes arriving late parked in normal car-parking bays. Perhaps it was this overspill into other areas of the car park that became a tipping point?

 

[GJH]

Exactly !
If it isn't on the notice then I'm certainly not hunting down "parking notices" at council offices unless someone is paying me large sums of money for the time taken in doing it. How can a foreigner be expected to know that was it on the sign is not what he can actually do ?


Ridiculous . Who in there right mind is going to do that ?


It isn't my job to check but there job to inform me. You don't work for them, they are employed by you.

They have informed you though, to the full extent that the law requires. We don't assume that we can take goods for nothing when we go into a shop for the first time do we so why should we assume we can do just as we like in a car park. That is especially the case when we all know that camping being allowed in car parks is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[GJH]

I find it bizarre that the overnighting parking of vehicles is always seen as the issue / excuse / stick to beat us with argument. Unless the car park is a 24 hour car park with a fee structure to match, why do they bother making such a fuss about out-of-hours parking?

Why should it be one vehicle could park and another not?

Parking a vehicle overnight in a car park that charges a fee from 8am till 6pm has nothing whatsoever to do with the parking charges, so what is the problem?

Speaking from experince of Pitlochry, I did note that on our stay the bays attributed to caravans and motorhomes filled up quickly and subsequently motorhomes arriving late parked in normal car-parking bays. Perhaps it was this overspill into other areas of the car park that became a tipping point?

The reason why some vehicles can park and others not is normally down to size/weight or that a particular class of user (e.g. commercial) might monopolise the car park to the detriment of other users.
Similarly, camping is often prohibited because people staying overnight may well still be there in the morning when the car park is required for its intended users, e.g. commuters or shoppers.

Car parks are, in the main, designed for parking only and to serve the 35 million cars rather than the quarter of a million motorhomes.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

So if your eating out or buying fish and chips as we did at Jedbrugh all your doing is boiling a kettle I don't suppose anyone would object to that.

A parking officer once told me that in his area nobody minded people enjoying a fish & chip supper in the evening but that was different from staying in the van overnight. It's the same on the Coast Road near you Madge. Redcar & Cleveland Council aren't going to get heavy handed over people picnicking during the day but have found it necessary to introduce the overnight ban.

Athol road car park Pitlochry is in M.H Parkings and states a fee of E4.60

I assume you mean Camper Contact. The problem with such guides is that they are difficult to keep up to date and so many of them rely on hearsay rather than fact (the main reason why I changed the emphasis of my own web site some years ago). That entry should never be there as a place for overnight camping because it has never been authorised as such by the council.

 

[Puddleduck]

That entry should never be there as a place for overnight camping because it has never been authorised as such by the council.

I think also that if there are caravan or motorhome bays marked then people (perhaps wrongly) assume it is an "aire" and okay for overnight parking.

 

[GJH]

I think also that if there are caravan or motorhome bays marked then people (perhaps wrongly) assume it is an "aire" and okay for overnight parking.

You may well be right Helen. Too often, in many walks of life, people assume something is OK because it matches what they want

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Puddleduck]

I think also that if there are caravan or motorhome bays marked then people (perhaps wrongly) assume it is an "aire" and okay for overnight parking.

You may well be right Helen. Too often, in many walks of life, people assume something is OK because it matches what they want

And it is very difficult if the notice is not in your native language. I think the UK is very poor at multii-language signage.

 

[PeteH]

(the parking order).

I often wonder if these are challengeable? . I believe I have seen cases, especially in Private car parks (or managed on behalf of) where for example the notices have been thrown out as being Unclear, badly worded or wrongly positioned etc?. Perhaps It`s past time a case was made for more clarity and less "blather" in the Laws in parking anyway. Viz a recent case in Beverley, where parking Fines where dismissed because the council had not followed the correct procedure regarding implementation?. Something to do with markings not being correct or of the wrong style?. Either way there are several hundred cases pending for re-reimbursement!. IMV a win for the little man, in the eternal battle with "Big Brother" AKA Local Authorities.

 

[GJH]

I often wonder if these are challengeable? . I believe I have seen cases, especially in Private car parks (or managed on behalf of) where for example the notices have been thrown out as being Unclear, badly worded or wrongly positioned etc?. Perhaps It`s past time a case was made for more clarity and less "blather" in the Laws in parking anyway. Viz a recent case in Beverley, where parking Fines where dismissed because the council had not followed the correct procedure regarding implementation?. Something to do with markings not being correct or of the wrong style?. Either way there are several hundred cases pending for re-reimbursement!. IMV a win for the little man, in the eternal battle with "Big Brother" AKA Local Authorities.

The legislation is different for private car parks, in that private landowners can not issue fines for a start. One of the factors in the changes which came in under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was unfair signage use by private landowners.

I haven't heard of the case in Beverley but that indicates that wrongly implemented orders are already (and quite rightly) challengeable. I certainly recall a case in Sunderland, several years ago, when fines were overturned because of incorrect street markings. In the Sunderland case the order was valid but the markings were not.

In fact, though, all parking orders are automatically open to challenge before they are made. Part of the process in making them is to advertise them for public comment. A fairly recent case which has been aired here is the implementation of on street restrictions on motorhomes in the Scarborough council area by North Yorkshire County Council. As a result the public consultation the proposed order was amended (to remove some proposed restrictions) before being implemented.

The alternative to parking orders, of course, is unrestricted parking. Presumably local authorities would then be criticised for not enabling free traffic flow because too many little men have big opinions of what they should be able to get away with and have no concern for other people

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PeteH]

The legislation is different for private car parks, in that private landowners can not issue fines for a start. One of the factors in the changes which came in under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was unfair signage use by private landowners.

I haven't heard of the case in Beverley but that indicates that wrongly implemented orders are already (and quite rightly) challengeable. I certainly recall a case in Sunderland, several years ago, when fines were overturned because of incorrect street markings. In the Sunderland case the order was valid but the markings were not.

In fact, though, all parking orders are automatically open to challenge before they are made. Part of the process in making them is to advertise them for public comment. A fairly recent case which has been aired here is the implementation of on street restrictions on motorhomes in the Scarborough council area by North Yorkshire County Council. As a result the public consultation the proposed order was amended (to remove some proposed restrictions) before being implemented.

The alternative to parking orders, of course, is unrestricted parking. Presumably local authorities would then be criticised for not enabling free traffic flow because too many little men have big opinions of what they should be able to get away with and have no concern for other people

In many way I would agree, with the last para;. But the methodology of tackling free flow of traffic hinges largely upon moving the parking from the highway to the car parks, which would seem on the face of it appear to be correct. Until, one considers the cost, restriction and time limitation applied to the off street parking in most cases being too restrictive with many of which appear to be designed for the pure purpose of "Revenue Collection", another favourite of L-A`s eg "stealth taxes". There are more complaints about Parking in our local "rag" than about anything else, which must say something?.

For example:-

Our L-A can proscribe the parking of vehicles around area`s of comercial and retail activity, thereby to force drivers into expensive off road parking where there are those who have received charges for being minutes over a time limit. However, In our road in a village, we have daily to suffer the extended use of our cul de sac with limited turning, being used as Car park, The reason? across from the end of our road is the Surgery, the rear access to the primary school, the Pharmacy and the Dentist! Most weekdays there are multiple blind spots created by parked vehicles. Requests for restriction, including "double yellows" on the Corner to stop vehicles creating said blind spots have received the "usual" we are looking into it / It is not a high priority etc;, so basically Tough! we have to have a child killed before it becomes an issue?. But of course there is no money to be made from our "problem". IF that sounds cynical, it is because when it come to the machinations of Bureaucracy I am!.

Pete

 

[BusyBuilder]

We parked up in Crieff at the McCrosty Park stayed two nights never heard a peep from local council. Very nice park it is too.
Also the Hermitage overflow carpark just off the A9 at Dunkeld should be okay as well.

I assume the car park restrictions are because of tinks ??

 

[GJH]

I assume the car park restrictions are because of tinks ??

Why? All the indications in posts on this thread suggest that it is "ordinary" motorhomers who have ignored parking restrictions because they were not suited by them.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[irnbru]

Why? All the indications in posts on this thread suggest that it is "ordinary" motorhomers who have ignored parking restrictions because they were not suited by them.

Yip I agree and I will hold my hands up and say I'm one of them. If they were sooo bothered by caravans/motorhomes/campervans they would enforce the signs whereas up till now all that was there , was a meter asking you to pay daytime and in very small letters no occupied vehicles overnight.

Its a small scottish town and even the locals say occupied overnighting has never been enforced. Unless there are private parking cameras installed and will probably be ignored due to scottish laws the only way I can see folk being moved on is by the police.

 

[GJH]

In many way I would agree, with the last para;. But the methodology of tackling free flow of traffic hinges largely upon moving the parking from the highway to the car parks, which would seem on the face of it appear to be correct. Until, one considers the cost, restriction and time limitation applied to the off street parking in most cases being too restrictive with many of which appear to be designed for the pure purpose of "Revenue Collection", another favourite of L-A`s eg "stealth taxes". There are more complaints about Parking in our local "rag" than about anything else, which must say something?.

For example:-

Our L-A can proscribe the parking of vehicles around area`s of comercial and retail activity, thereby to force drivers into expensive off road parking where there are those who have received charges for being minutes over a time limit. However, In our road in a village, we have daily to suffer the extended use of our cul de sac with limited turning, being used as Car park, The reason? across from the end of our road is the Surgery, the rear access to the primary school, the Pharmacy and the Dentist! Most weekdays there are multiple blind spots created by parked vehicles. Requests for restriction, including "double yellows" on the Corner to stop vehicles creating said blind spots have received the "usual" we are looking into it / It is not a high priority etc;, so basically Tough! we have to have a child killed before it becomes an issue?. But of course there is no money to be made from our "problem". IF that sounds cynical, it is because when it come to the machinations of Bureaucracy I am!.

Pete

Time limitations in long term car parks tend to be aimed at, and cater for, commuters. Those in short term car parks tend to be aimed at shoppers. The limitations seem to work pretty well in my experience.
As to cost, the two main council car parks for shoppers in the two major towns on Teesside (Middlesbrough and Stockton) are free for the first two hours. Hardly a stealth tax. That may not be the case in other areas but high charges for car parking are certainly not universal. The two main private shoppers car parks in Middlesbrough and Stockton still charge but are still used because people find them convenient enough to pay £1 or £1.50 for up to a couple of hours.

We also suffer indiscriminate daytime parking in our residential street, as a result of parents dropping off and collecting children from the school behind us. The council has surveyed residents about putting in parking restrictions but has found only a minority supporting them, quite possibly because many residents park their vehicles half on the pavement and half on the road overnight. Rather than individual requests for restrictions to the council perhaps somebody needs to go round the residents and collect signatures on a petition to be presented to the council and the local press.

 

[GJH]

Yip I agree and I will hold my hands up and say I'm one of them. If they were sooo bothered by caravans/motorhomes/campervans they would enforce the signs whereas up till now all that was there , was a meter asking you to pay daytime and in very small letters no occupied vehicles overnight.

Its a small scottish town and even the locals say occupied overnighting has never been enforced. Unless there are private parking cameras installed and will probably be ignored due to scottish laws the only way I can see folk being moved on is by the police.

Perhaps the escalation of signage which prompted this thread is an indication of impending enhanced enforcement. What we have seen, in other areas, is height barriers being erected as a result of continued abuse. I hope it doesn't come to that but if it does then the cause will be unsurprising.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}