Petition: Amend PCSC Bill to withdraw power to seize vehicles used as mobile homes

G

Gaza1515

Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Posts
37
Likes collected
39
Location
Accrington
Funster No
68,957
MH
Geist 710
Exp
Since 2015
Hi Guys, I know this is aimed at travellers, both new age and gypsy, however full timer campers will be tared with the same brush.
Have a look at the websites below.

www.cornwalllive.com

Motorhomes parked without permission could be seized

It is one of a series of new measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill going through Parliament
www.cornwalllive.com www.cornwalllive.com

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-bill-2021-unauthorised-encampments-factsheet

If you want to sign the petition then follow this link: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/583903
 
Gaza1515 said:
Hi Guys, I know this is aimed at travellers, both new age and gypsy, however full timer campers will be tared with the same brush.
Have a look at the websites below.

www.cornwalllive.com

Motorhomes parked without permission could be seized

It is one of a series of new measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill going through Parliament
www.cornwalllive.com www.cornwalllive.com

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-bill-2021-unauthorised-encampments-factsheet

If you want to sign the petition then follow this link: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/583903
Click to expand...
Of course they will, there are two full timers parked up in a country lane near me, the verge they are parked on has wheel ruts and muddy patches one has not moved for about 6 months and Suspect they will e targeted by the council of this act goes through.
 
Broken Link Removed
 
If full time campers refuse to move when the owner of the land they are on, or a constable, asks them to move on. Then they deserve the book thrown at them. There is zero powers for them to lose their vans if they move when asked by the landowner.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
As a Fulltimer (although temporarily based), I disagree. This law is necessary and well constructed in my view.

If as a fulltimer you are asked by the landowner or the police to move, then move. Job done...

Don't be a dick and stay where you aren't wanted and this law is not a problem.
 
Not sure why you all seem so confident that it won’t affect you personally. It’s dangerous ground to grant powers on the basis that they won’t be used - once a power is granted it remains there.

Petition signed.
 
GJH said:
Not so. It is aimed at anyone who abuses people by camping on their land against their wishes.
Abusers include some motorhomers, both full time and part time.
Click to expand...
I suspect if this law passes it will be quite far ranging and not just to what people perceive as 'abusers' and may include when you just park up to enjoy a view you could be asked to move on.....time will tell I guess

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
If I had land and found a camper, or several, on it I would try to find out how long they expected to stay, if they were still there in a few days I would want them moved off.
It’s obvious, told to move……move!
 
There are a myriad of powers available under current law, often not used.
Public moan about a situation however rarely write a letter of compliant in an appropriate form!
Just an outline attached for information:
www.gov.uk

Dealing with illegal and unauthorised encampments

A summary of available powers to tackle the formation of illegal and unauthorised camp sites and help the reclamation of land and property.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
Coolcats said:
I suspect if this law passes it will be quite far ranging and not just to what people perceive as 'abusers' and may include when you just park up to enjoy a view you could be asked to move on.....time will tell I guess
Click to expand...
If you are asked to move on, then move on. It is ONLY if you don't you have problems.

I really don't mind how far ranging it goes. The base line of this is... If you are on someone elses land and get asked to move on you ONLY get into problems if you refuse.

I really do struggle to see the problems with this law.
 
Coolcats said:
I suspect if this law passes it will be quite far ranging and not just to what people perceive as 'abusers' and may include when you just park up to enjoy a view you could be asked to move on.....time will tell I guess
Click to expand...
The perception which matters is that of the landowner. Why should anyone think they can camp (or "just" park up) on private land, against the wishes of the landowner, just because it suits them?
 
Coolcats said:
I suspect if this law passes it will be quite far ranging and not just to what people perceive as 'abusers' and may include when you just park up to enjoy a view you could be asked to move on.....time will tell I guess
Click to expand...
If you park up on someone else's private land it doesn't matter what you are there to do, if they want you to move, you move, you refuse then that's when this law comes into play to allow the land owner to remove you more efficiently than having to go to go through a whole load of bureaucracy to do so - its no difficult to someone parking their MH on your private drive.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Clipgate said:
There are a myriad of powers available under current law, often not used.
Public moan about a situation however rarely write a letter of compliant in an appropriate form!
Just an outline attached for information:
www.gov.uk

Dealing with illegal and unauthorised encampments

A summary of available powers to tackle the formation of illegal and unauthorised camp sites and help the reclamation of land and property.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...

There are many problems with using the existing powers. Local Authorities and private landowners having to get Court Orders or injunctions at huge expense and significant delay, then use private bailiffs (with Police in attendance, for protection). I've done that. Good luck recovering the legal costs from itinerants. On top of that there are Human Rights obstacles, systematically exploited to add delay and expense.

Police are only able to remove vehicles summarily if the trespassers have caused damage to land or property, or made threats or used abusive language towards the (lawful) occupier/owner, or there are 6 or more vehicles on the land. Not good enough.

Letters of complaint from the public to the LA are at risk of being ignored or tossed in the circular file if deemed to be racist (Irish Traveller or Romany Gipsy being a protected characteristic under Equalities legislation). Which makes it difficult in practice for Joe Public to formulate a complaint that can't be ignored, because the things that annoy us most about unauthorised encampments fall foul of that trap too easily. If you have met your Council's Diversity Inclusion and Equalities Manager you will understand this.

The current Bill will help to remove these obstacles (and cost) and speed up the process.

I can't see it as a problem for any responsible MHer. Especially if you are only stopping to admire the view or walk your dog. Intention to reside (presumably that means staying overnight) is a condition before the proposed new Police powers can be invoked.
 
Every bit of land in the uk has been bought/stolen by someone . Whether its councils , trusts or private owners. This bill gets passed it brings an end to wildcamping in beach carparks etc with it . It simply means if one person phones the police because you are parked where he walks his dog and the police have to act on it . You will then be asked to move on whereas before the police would likely have not been interested unless you were doing harm.

Thats what this bill will bring with it. One complaint from anyone , justified or not.

Fine if you use campsites .... personally ive signed for it to be ammended and fortunately most of the vanlife groups etc have had the sense to do likewise.

There's a reason many of the papers etc running this story state it will bring an end to wildcamping ....because thats it aim .

www.euronews.com

Campervanners could soon be criminalised for wild camping in the UK

A new bill means campervanners wild camping in Britain could become a criminal offence. We find out more.
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com
 
I think that the Bill will prevent and destroy "Wild Camps" but not stop people from overnighting in "wild places"

If that is the case, excellent!

A single van tucked away somewhere, off the beaten track causing no one bother isn't a problem and I doubt anyone cares

30 vans parked along a seafront for the Summer is an eyesore, a piss take and a health hazard. If those people are told to move and refuse, then the consequences are down to them.

If they started crushing vans at one end of the line I wonder how many they would get to crush before everyone else obeyed?
 
Coolcats said:
I suspect if this law passes it will be quite far ranging and not just to what people perceive as 'abusers' and may include when you just park up to enjoy a view you could be asked to move on.....time will tell I guess
Click to expand...
It will mean basically any local authority carpark , beach carpark , even a supermarket carpark . If anyone at all takes objection to you parking there you will have to move. Its a power that will most certainly be abused.
 
eddievanbitz said:
I think that the Bill will prevent and destroy "Wild Camps" but not stop people from overnighting in "wild places"

If that is the case, excellent!

A single van tucked away somewhere, off the beaten track causing no one bother isn't a problem and I doubt anyone cares

30 vans parked along a seafront for the Summer is an eyesore, a piss take and a health hazard. If those people are told to move and refuse, then the consequences are down to them.

If they started crushing vans at one end of the line I wonder how many they would get to crush before everyone else obeyed?
Click to expand...
You have greater faith in humanity than i have. That single van tucked away doing no harm just needs 1 obnoxious person to phone the police and report it and under the new bill it will be told to move because someone has complained.

The police notoriously love easy targets and fines. Moving one van is far easier than moving a group where they may encounter resistance.

This law will be abused no end

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Northernraider said:
It simply means if one person phones the police because you are parked where he walks his dog and the police have to act on it .
Click to expand...

Northernraider said:
That single van tucked away doing no harm just needs 1 obnoxious person to phone the police and report it and under the new bill it will be told to move because someone has complained.
Click to expand...
Sorry Tam that is a load of bollocks the police can only be called to remove the offender if they have refused to move after the land owner has asked them to move.
 
well I’ve read the proposed bill several times and they appear to have removed the section that say anyone can tell anyone to move and if you don’t the police will seize your van.

seems to now say that the landowner has some rights over his land.


Broken Link Removed
Para 62.
 
Oh so the bill will stop me shopping in my van at Tescos now :doh: And parking in legal parking spaces :rolleyes:

I'm not worried by the bill at all. Though I do think it was better shaped at dealing with the issue when it mentioned that there had to be 2 or more vans to be an encampment, but the Bill has a way to go yet and I wouldn't be surprised to see this bit added back.
 

Interestingly (sorry for bold, can’t get it off), a quick google search brought up the below from Lincolnshire Police.​

I would think from reading this that by the time a lone motorhomer parking anywhere was moved from routine to a more urgent response those parking for a cup of tea would be well gone. If in a public lay by or parking space then the complainant is probably going to have to wait a very long time. If they are stopped on someone’s garden, in the grassed area of a public park or similar then a quicker response might be judged necessary, but it will still not be immediate.​

Anyone upping the anti and eliciting a more urgent response probably deserves it.​

This is clearly, to anyone with a modicum of common sense, not going to to be practical to get resources to in anything like fast response mode, unless it is triggered by something more serious.

Two things have to happen, firstly the legislation has to be passed, and then the guidelines as always will need to be drawn up. It will be interesting to see what is in those guidelines in due course.

I can see no reason to sign this petition.

​

Broken Link Removed​

How we grade incidents​

We grade incidents into the following categories:

Urgent​

An urgent response will be required where it is assessed that there is a heightened risk associated with the incident. It will qualify as an emergency
contact if any of the criteria set out below are satisfied:

- An emergency contact encompasses circumstances where an incident is reported to the Police which is taking place and in which there is, or is likely to be a risk of:

  • Danger to life
  • Use, or immediate threat of use, of violence
  • Serious injury to a person and/or
  • Serious damage to property
- Where the contact relates to an allegation of criminal conduct, it will be dealt with as an emergency if:

  • The crime is, or is likely to be serious and in progress
  • An offender has just been disturbed at the scene
  • An offender has been detained and poses, or is likely to pose a risk to other people
  • Important evidence may be lost
- Where the contact relates to a traffic collision it will be dealt with as an emergency if:

  • It involves or is likely to involve serious personal injury
  • The road is blocked or there is a dangerous or excessive build-up of traffic
- Where the above circumstances do not apply a contact will still be classified as an emergency if:

  • The circumstances are such that a police call taker has strong and objective reasons for believing that the incident should be classified as an emergency, the call handler will immediately refer the incident to a supervisor or FCR Inspector for assessment
  • An emergency contact will require immediate response in line with specific attendance policies, for example where a critical register marker dictates an urgent response

Priority​

A priority response will be required where the Police call taker acknowledges that there is a degree of importance associated with the initial Police action, but where an urgent response is not required.

Guiding criteria for grading any incident as a Priority response is as follows:

  • There is a genuine concern for somebody’s safety, but no immediate danger to life
  • An offender has been detained and is compliant
  • A witness or other evidence is likely to be lost
  • At a road traffic collision which does not involve serious injury or dangerous or excessive build-up of traffic
  • A person involved is suffering extreme distress or is otherwise deemed to be extremely vulnerable
Such incidents require a prompt response but do not usually necessitate the use of emergency sound and light equipment.

Routine​

A routine response is required when the call taker assesses that the needs of the caller can be met by use of the ‘Diary Appointment System’ under the following circumstances:

  • Any incident where a Police response is required but an Urgent or Priority response is not necessary
  • The response time is not critical in apprehending offenders
  • A more proportionate, better quality and more victim focussed response can be taken if it is dealt with by a pre-arranged appointment with an
    appropriate Police resource at a time suitable to the caller. This appointment will be at a police station. Where certain exemptions apply police will attend the home address but not within the diary system.
 
Gromett said:
I really do struggle to see the problems with this law.
Click to expand...
Any law will eventally be abused by someone supposedly there to enforce it
eddievanbitz said:
If they started crushing vans at one end of the line I wonder how many they would get to crush before everyone else obeyed?
Click to expand...
& I wonder how many wouldn't hesitate to use any methods to stop the vehicle being seized? I disagreed with seizure of vehicles from the outset, mainly due to the amount they seized illegally, then when you retrieve it half the stuff is missing /been stolen. Yes I would't allow any police , council official , etc; to attempt to seize my vehicle.I would have no problem dispensing with them at the side of the road-
Northernraider said:
Its a power that will most certainly be abused.
Click to expand...
Ju st like they have abused many others. Fingerprints, dna, illegal searches on computers,etc;etc,

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
gus-lopez said:
I disagreed with seizure of vehicles from the outset,
Click to expand...


Seizure of assets is a good tool in the armoury against crime. Esp, when people have no fixed abodes and fake names etc. Don't want anything nicked out of your van when its been seized, move on when asked.
 
Coolcats said:
I suspect if this law passes it will be quite far ranging and not just to what people perceive as 'abusers' and may include when you just park up to enjoy a view you could be asked to move on.....time will tell I guess
Click to expand...
If you are "admiring the view" in the company of other, shall we say, non motorhomers and the Constable targets just you, there is redress under 'The Police Discipline Regs' for the offence of 'Abuse of Power'.
 
And here is the bit where they can crush your van……

The relevant chief officer of police may retain any property that has 10 been seized under subsection (1) until the end of the period of three months beginning with the day of the seizure (“the relevant period”).
(5) But the relevant chief officer of police ceases to be entitled to retain the property if before the end of the relevant period a custody officer gives written notice to P that P is not to be prosecuted for the offence under 15 section 60C in relation to which the property was seized.
(And see subsection (10)).
(6) Subsection (7) applies where before the end of the relevant period proceedings for an offence under section 60C are commenced against P.
(7) Where this subsection applies the relevant chief officer of police may 20 retain the property seized until the conclusion of proceedings relating
to the offence (including any appeal) (but see subsection (10)).
(8) Where a chief officer of police ceases to be entitled to retain property
under this section the chief officer must, subject to any order for forfeiture under section 60E, return it to the person whom the chief officer believes to be its owner.
 
gus-lopez said:
Any law will eventally be abused by someone supposedly there to enforce it
Click to expand...
Similarly any law will be broken eventually by those who think that they can get away with it. That might explain the need for effective law enforcement...

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top