Anyone had trouble parking there motorhome outside their house? (1 Viewer)

[Feltwell]

I do think a motorhome is a bit of an awkward vehicle to have at home sometimes, like any big vehicle I suppose. We're lucky enough to have a drive to the side of the house which I can just get the van and 2 cars in nose to tail, it's tight though and I do block access to one set of garage doors. The van sometimes gets put out on the road during the day at weekends so I can work in the drive - it's then sat in front of our and our neighbour's houses, taking up a space that 2 cars can occupy, but it's the only place to put it.

I do try and minimise the occasions I do that though, as it makes seeing if a car is coming up the road when getting out of our or their driveways more difficult. They've never complained but I don't want to push it as I'm sure they find it a little irritating.

 

[gus-lopez]

Any link that I can read regarding this, in the UK

Although it would appear that I was correct just that nowdays it appears to have become accepted?
https://pedestrianliberation.org/the-law-2/

 

[Silver-Fox]

Although it would appear that I was correct just that nowdays it appears to have become accepted?
https://pedestrianliberation.org/the-law-2/

Interesting but I think it would be pushing it to say you were correct
Unless I read it wrong its always been the case one could stop on the highway and causing an obstruction.
The first article does say there is no legal rite to stop but its not illegal to do so.
The second article was regarding a food van and seating so slightly different issue I think.
Or have I missed something?

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

 

[tjay]

It is in my covenant not to park motorhomes,caravans or works vans in the drive ! btw ours can take our moho and 5 cars !
Received letter from council to move it and I told them when the 5 caravans, 4 motorhomes and good knows how man works van get moved then I will too. Never heard anymore and there has never been any changes !
For peace of mind I opened up the rear side of our house applied for dropped kerbs (received) and monoblocked enough of my large garden to allow me to put moho at rear of the house, best thin ever did, have hookup. water, elsan and grey waste drain ! sorted ! hope all goes well with you !!

 

[SpeedyDux]

Although it would appear that I was correct just that nowdays it appears to have become accepted?
https://pedestrianliberation.org/the-law-2/

Excellent stuff so I congratulate @gus-lopez for finding and linking these materials to answer @Silver-Fox! That Nicholas Hancox feller from Narfook has provided a useful summary of where the law lies on obstruction of the highway. The other blog is a great illustration of how pavement law is just a mess of historic accretions like a wreck encrusted with barnacles. Incredibly geeky stuff.

 

[tonyidle]

I don't normally park my MH at home (it is in storage) however it will be parked on the road (it's too long for my drive) for one night while I fill up the water etc before going away. I normally do this at the store but with the cold weather the water is off.
According to the Highway code it will need lights while parked at night. However I am sure if I do leave the sidelights on I will be disturbed all night by assorted well-meaning neighbours telling me I've left my lights on. What to do, I have never seen any vehicle parked in our road (or actually anywhere else) with lights on at night. The road is lit (new extra dim LED streetlights).

I suppose I could get a couple of cheap LED bike lights and put them somewhere suitable.

What does everyone think?

If it's within a 30mph limit and there are street lights it doesn't need parking lights.

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

 

[Reallyretired]

If it's within a 30mph limit and there are street lights it doesn't need parking lights.

As I read the highway code it needs lights because of its weight. However I think having lights will cause more problems than not doing so.
I am having dinner with a cousin and his wife who are police at the weekend so will ask them.

 

[tonyidle]

As I read the highway code it needs lights because of its weight. However I think having lights will cause more problems than not doing so.
I am having dinner with a cousin and his wife who are police at the weekend so will ask them.

Sorry - I assumed under 3500kg.

 

[MR. FUSION]

The covenents for my estate managed to miss out motorhomes for some reason but covered every other type of large vehicle.

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

 

[Lenny HB]

The covenents for my estate managed to miss out motorhomes for some reason but covered every other type of large vehicle.

If it includes caravans it also applies to Motorhomes as for the purpose of the law a Motorhome is a Motor Caravan.

 

[Bobby22]

Here's a copy of the letter received have queried a few points that need clarification.
1. Permanent ? moved every 3-4 weeks without fail sometimes away for two weeks at a time
2. Large Motorhome/caravan define large as above 8 meters 7 meters my one!(stated in caravan club handbook they are the experts)
3. Vehicle is Taxed, insured and has MOT
4. We are not council tenants although the house is an ex council one.
Furthermore vehicle is cleaned every two weeks!
No one is living in it we have three bedroom house but there is only two of us registered at my address!
Also phoned council to check if I can park motorhome outside my house reply yes if taxed and Moted here's your reference number for that!
They are currently emailing me a response and removing egg of their faces!
Will post up copy of email once I receive.
Jim

Since your van has been parked there for 4 years i suspect the council chap, that needed a collegue to come and hep take pictures, has had a promotion and he, and his collegue, are super efficient, work to the letter of the law and get themselves brownie points.
Nobody complained but he, and his collegue, could go back to their desks and look busy.
New Sherrif in town!!!

 

[MR. FUSION]

If it includes caravans it also applies to Motorhomes as for the purpose of the law a Motorhome is a Motor Caravan.

Irrespective someone with a van much longer than mine is parking up all the time....so we will see what happens!!

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

 

[StitchesnFluff]

complete waste of my time you would have thought they would check things out!
A lot of people have them locally!
They can however appeal against the decision strange
Have just moved it forward 2 inches lol

Well done, things like these are best sorted

 

[SpeedyDux]

If it includes caravans it also applies to Motorhomes as for the purpose of the law a Motorhome is a Motor Caravan.

That's a question of interpretation. AFAIK no test case in the higher courts has considered this issue in the context of a restrictive covenant.

There are quite good arguments against this interpretation, which many assume would follow the definition of "caravan" in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, probably because it is the only statutory definition of "caravan", and it includes "and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted". Nobody knows which view would prevail in a test case.

The counter-argument is that, if the person who drafted the wording of the restriction had intended the covenant to cover motorhomes, motorcaravans and campervans, he or she would have said so. Motorcaravans were manufactured or coverted and on sale to the public before the 1960 Act. It is not rocket science to include them in the wording of a covenant after 1960. Alternatively, if the draftsman had intended the meaning of "caravan" to be as defined by the 1960 Act he or she could easily have incorporated that definition by reference to the Act.

The wording of these covenants often includes a list of specific things and activities that are banned or restricted, so you should presume that the list is intended to be exclusive unless the contrary is stated. If it says "caravan" but omits "motorcaravan" there is no necessity to imply additional wording. Lazy or bad drafting is not something that the court should put right unless a very strong case is made out for fixing it.

In any case why should the 1960 Act have any relevance to the interpretation of restrictive covenants? In my view this is important.

The purpose of the 1960 Act is the licensing of caravan sites. The Act is a part of the planning control system involving local authorities and their powers to control development. It has nothing to do at all with private property rights between landowners. Nothing in the Act says it is intended to apply to restrictive covenants on private land.

The First Schedule to the Act states cases where a caravan site licence is not required. Paragraph 1 states "A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment as such of a dwellinghouse within the curtilage of which the land is situated."

In other words, keeping a caravan (by definition this includes a motorhome) on your drive or in your garden does not require a site licence. It is a normal part of the enjoyment of the use of your property. There is nothing intrinsically bad about keeping a caravan. It is not a mischief that requires the courts to intervene and side with a complaining neighbour. This part of the First Schedule adds some weight to the argument that Parliament intended the scope of the Act to be quite narrow and specific to the matter of site licences, and also intended to exclude specifically private dwellings and their driveways and gardens from the effect of the Act.

It's a bit like the legality of A-Frames controversy. It will run and run until there is a test case or new legislation on the point.

 

[Lot lover]

Thank you all for reminding me of one of the reasons that we left England.

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

 

[nicholsong]

I concur with my Learned Friend 'SpeedyDux' opinion in Post No. 104 above.

Geoff