40 motorhome owners taken to court. (1 Viewer)

[chaser]

Roger
Question..

You have a site and the terms by which people can park on your site are that they abide by the ‘rules’ that you have and pay a fee.
What would you do if someone drove onto your site, pitched up and stayed for two weeks, using your facilities and refused to pay, i.e. in breach of your terms and conditions, also they just dumped whatever anywhere.
Firtsly, you could call the Old Bill and I suspect under current laws there is very little they could or would do. If you took direct action yourself then you could be in deep water. Your only legal course of action is to go to court, and that would be funded by yourself at great expense.
That’s no different, in principle as to what these people are doing.
The, they buy local so they must be supporting the local economy, is possibly right, but more than likely they will be travelling to buy the cheapest.
yorkieman
“As for councils providing drains, water, etc - here, here. I'd gladly pay a small fee to use such amenities.”
Right, the cost of supplying and maintaining the above would never ever be covered by your ‘small fee’, the cost of planning, design and implementation would be huge, along with its maintainance. Let me give you as similar scenario. In Australia they had at one time rest areas on the highways and they had electric BBq’s set up to be used by travellers, they were on a coin operated system. Great idea. But, the coin operated system was constantly being attacked by vandals and thieves, so those in charge decided that the cost v benefits of the coin system could not be sustained so they decommissioned the coin system and made them FREE. Another great idea, but, as the system was FREE then everyone was using them and not bothering to clean them after use, so you can guess the rest.
Councils would have great difficulty in being able to justify spending locally collected taxes for the benefit of those who do not live locally and do not pay tax locally. Yes it may fill the pockets of a local shop, or pub, but that’s it.
Can you imagine the local taxpayers, they have a council spending our money for the benefits of some who come here for say 7 days, spend very little and benefit from out hard earned taxes.
The UK as it stands has a number of issues. There are to name a small number.
a) We have laws that protect the travelling community which is being abused and costly to rectify. Having an Aire system would be music to their ears.
b) We have had an explosion of numbers of individuals who have bought Motorhomes and have this romantic idea of wild camping. That may have been fine when Wildman or similar were going around surfing in the 1960’s in the self conversion or VW, but that was then. Now it’s an 8m fully fitted house on wheels , daily showers and other daily waste.
c) Funding or the political will is not there, you could argue that’s being catered for by the traditional campsites.
d) This ‘freeloading’ is fine, but at the end of the day someone has to pick up the cost, nothing is actually free.
e) As with most things, a small number will abuse it and the rest will suffer.

Lastly the issue of seizing the motorhome, I can see no reason why the Council could not enforce the debt by requesting a Warrant of Execution to enforce a Court Order. If the defendant has been given enough time to pay and still refuses to pay after due process, then if the only asset of the defendant is a motorhome then I can’t see why it can’t be seized, sold and the residue given back to the owner. They had a choice, they court found against them then let the process of law continue. The council has a legal duty remember.
If your unhappy with the Law then change it.; This pillock with his legal crusade will push Motorhomes further to the fringe and may well make the general public think that they are more akin to Gypsies and travellers.



Romantic freeloading campers your call..

You have got it all there, very little anyone can add to that, what we need is cops with guns standing at the gate , as would happen in Europe and if they know they , the police, will be there, they would soon change their minds.
Didn't take the police long to shift the Calais campers did it, never heard any uman rites being spouted there.

 

[GJH]

You have got it all there, very little anyone can add to that, what we need is cops with guns standing at the gate , as would happen in Europe and if they know they , the police, will be there, they would soon change their minds.
Didn't take the police long to shift the Calais campers did it, [HI]never heard any uman rites being spouted there.[/HI]

You wouldn't because the French version of the HRA includes derogations which were available to the UK government but not included. Instead the UK government gave Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers ethnic minority status (something which the latter group does not even enjoy in Ireland). Some travellers who do not belong to those groups claim to do so in order to delay the eviction process. There is little the police, local authorities or private landowners can do in the short term because they are hamstrung by the legislation.

 

[peterc10]

So if you get clamped you loose the car ?
The difference is you can reasonably expect to get it back..
There is the inference that the council will seize the vehicle instead of a person paying the fine.. In other words he has chosen to INFER the MH will be lost to the owners..

Typical politician .. no idea of that which he utters but quite happy to offer vague threats to folk who do not know the law

If he had said seize the vehicle until such times as fines are paid that would be a different matter

And with the new laws governing clamping, even that is incredibly dodgy ground

I think the politician could be correct. Once they have had fines imposed by the courts then the Bailiffs (or whatever they are called now) can be employed to collect those fines. And as part of that process they can, with a few exceptions, seize property (including vehicles) owned by the debtor and sell them in order to recover the fins and their own costs.

And I also agree that the guy quoted in the article originally posted, Andy Strangeway, is a Grade A pratt and is doing the motorhoming fraternity no good whatsoever. He certainly does not speak for me!!

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

 

[ShiftZZ]

You have got it all there, very little anyone can add to that, what we need is cops with guns standing at the gate , as would happen in Europe and if they know they , the police, will be there, they would soon change their minds.
Didn't take the police long to shift the Calais campers did it, never heard any uman rites being spouted there.

It would appear that the 'illegals' in Calais are threatening to sew up their own lips until such time that the UK and French Government come to an agreement to allow them free entry into the UK, they further demand that they are given houses to live in, 3 meals a day and no police harassment pending their transit into the UK..
They also want free medical care.

Human rights, fully support it, great in principle but putting it into action another issue..

But as Cameron said recently in the papers, we should be 'more British', that's a big problem, as no one can define what he means.

The problem is badly drafted laws and the knock on effect of those loopholes etc. We have bent over backwards to allow appeal after appeal, we now allow people to appeal on the grounds of their sexual preference, but, if we ask them to prove their sexuality we are in breach..

This individual fighting the council, may well have good intentions, but he is lacking two things...
Common sense and a strong business case.
He demands, he expects them to comply regardless of the cost.

The reality is the council must make the most of what they get from taxpayers (yes we can disagree) but when it comes down to spending £50k on an aire and the potential for a small income or something that the voters want, then its a no brainer. You see no end of applications for travelers sites being proposed by the council and objected to by the taxpayers, a certain lose /lose scenario.

The French model is so different, it fits into the French way of life, the French police don't mess about and the courts are not as lenient. No stiff upper lip in France, just a Gallic shrug and the backing of the CRS..

 

[freelanderuk]

i have loads of easy thread needles and plenty of cotton, do we have an address to send it ,

 

[JJ]

DOGGING!

Did someone mention dogging?

Where... when... ?

Anyone got a dog I can borrow?


JJ :Cool:

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

 

[Jaws]

I think the politician could be correct. Once they have had fines imposed by the courts then the Bailiffs (or whatever they are called now) can be employed to collect those fines. And as part of that process they can, with a few exceptions, seize property (including vehicles) owned by the debtor and sell them in order to recover the fins and their own costs.

And I also agree that the guy quoted in the article originally posted, Andy Strangeway, is a Grade A pratt and is doing the motorhoming fraternity no good whatsoever. He certainly does not speak for me!!

Nope.. Goods and chattels to the value of the fine only.. I just foned a man who is still a bailiff to double check..

 

[Jaws]

He also mentioned that if the motorhomes belong to full timers then that is their home and again it cannot be taken from them in payment for a fine.. In fact if they ARE full timers that makes even evicting them for the car park difficult ( witness the many gypsy encampment fiascos ! )