Potential legal prevention of UK "aires" and "pub stopovers"? (2 Viewers)

[Deleted member 29692]

That would be all the landlords allowing their unlicensed pub car parks, and the like, for camping would it?

Been thinking about that.

Any landlord, or anyone else for that matter, if challenged could claim the 28 day rule applies so they are in fact operating legally.

Many of them probably are legal under those terms anyway but either way it would take some serious monitoring by an interested party to prove otherwise.

 

[gus-lopez]

Doesn't matter. Relevant or not the 1960 Act is the applicable legislation.

That is not going to change and it cannot simply be bypassed or ignored however much you find it inconvenient.

The sooner you accept that the sooner you will be able to contribute something useful to the debate.

And as I stated previously you need then to ensure that A) the police & B) council enforcement officers understand the act & that a MH is a caravan. Because they were the ones stating, to me, it wasn't.

Of course it did. Have you read the Bill from which the Act resulted? Given previous exchanges I assume not.
The Bill makes it clear that it was to deal with both permanent and touring caravans, taking the place of the "licensing system for so-called moveable dwellings in the Public Health Act, 1936.".

It INCLUDED touring caravans as a catch-all.
It was brought about by a report on the amount of people who were living in caravans over which the local authority had no control.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

And as I stated previously you need then to ensure that A) the police & B) council enforcement officers understand the act & that a MH is a caravan. Because they were the ones stating, to me, it wasn't

Not disputing that at all.

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

 

[GJH]

Been thinking about that.

Any landlord, or anyone else for that matter, if challenged could claim the 28 day rule applies so they are in fact operating legally.

Many of them probably are legal under those terms anyway but either way it would take some serious monitoring by an interested party to prove otherwise.

Yes, they could but does anyone seriously believe it?
Wouldn't work if they had more than one van on site either - as posted previously I have seen that (and there have been posts on here)

 

[GJH]

And as I stated previously you need then to ensure that A) the police & B) council enforcement officers understand the act & that a MH is a caravan. Because they were the ones stating, to me, it wasn't.

I hope you educated them. I would have

It INCLUDED touring caravans as a catch-all.
It was brought about by a report on the amount of people who were living in caravans over which the local authority had no control.

The debate on the Bill mentions various reasons. It doesn't really matter because it is the legislation in force now - whatever some of our fellow members may not like about it

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Yes, they could but does anyone seriously believe it?
Wouldn't work if they had more than one van on site either - as posted previously I have seen that (and there have been posts on here)

Para 3 (1) (b) says not more than 3 at a time?

Doesn’t matter if anyone believes it or not anyway. If someone thinks the rule has been broken it would be down to them to prove.

I guess my point is that pub stops are not necessarily illegal and they don’t necessarily need to be licensed.

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

 

[GJH]

Para 3 (1) (b) says not more than 3 at a time?

Doesn’t matter if anyone believes it or not. If someone thinks the rule has been broken it would be down to them to prove.

That's only where the land is 5 acres or more Para 2 applies to most.
It still wouldn't be any defence when 5 vans were on site together

 

[Deleted member 29692]

That's only where the land is 5 acres or more Para 2 applies to most.
It still wouldn't be any defence when 5 vans were on site together

No it wouldn’t but that many is the exception rather than the rule in my experience. From the top of my head there’s only been one occasion where we haven’t been the only van at the Britstops we’ve used (not all pubs) so unless anyone has any proof that the 28 day rule has been exceeded in any of the cases the hosts have been acting perfectly correctly in allowing us to stay.

 

[GJH]

No it wouldn’t but that many is the exception rather than the rule in my experience. From the top of my head there’s only been one occasion where we haven’t been the only van at the Britstops we’ve used (not all pubs) so unless anyone has any proof that the 28 day rule has been exceeded in any of the cases the hosts have been acting perfectly correctly in allowing us to stay.

Well, you can tell yourself that if you like

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

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Well, you can tell yourself that if you like

Which bit is factually incorrect?

If a pub stop in the middle of nowhere gets 1 or 2 vans a month stay overnight for 1 night how are they in contravention of the Act?

If they had 5 every night yes of course they would be, I'm not disputing that but very few pub stops can truthfully claim that.

As someone who uses them a lot I'd be surprised if more than a handful actually break the 28 day rule in terms of number of nights although there are more that would fall foul of the 1 or 3 van clause.

 

[GJH]

Which bit is factually incorrect?

If a pub stop in the middle of nowhere gets 1 or 2 vans a month stay overnight for 1 night how are they in contravention of the Act?

If they had 5 every night yes of course they would be, I'm not disputing that but very few pub stops can truthfully claim that.

As someone who uses them a lot I'd be surprised if more than a handful actually break the 28 day rule in terms of number of nights although there are more that would fall foul of the 1 or 3 van clause.

I'd be surprised if it was such a small number.
Just over a year ago I contacted a pub which advertises itself as a motorhome stopover asking whether it was a full site or a CL. The reply I received was "It's just a private carpark not a site. We allow one motorhome to stay over due to space restrictions (we're very popular)." followed by a second reply "Furthermore, one motorhome (as stated on the website) for one night does not require a license."
When I said "Thanks for the clarification. From your web site I gained the impression you had space available daily. As you say, a licence isn't needed for a single motorhome - but you are restricted to 28 days in any 12 month period." I heard nothing more.
I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions as to whether a "very popular" place is restricting itself to 28 nights

 

[Deleted member 29692]

I'd be surprised if it was such a small number.
Just over a year ago I contacted a pub which advertises itself as a motorhome stopover asking whether it was a full site or a CL. The reply I received was "It's just a private carpark not a site. We allow one motorhome to stay over due to space restrictions (we're very popular)." followed by a second reply "Furthermore, one motorhome (as stated on the website) for one night does not require a license."
When I said "Thanks for the clarification. From your web site I gained the impression you had space available daily. As you say, a licence isn't needed for a single motorhome - but you are restricted to 28 days in any 12 month period." I heard nothing more.
I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions as to whether a "very popular" place is restricting itself to 28 nights

I’m sure the popular places do break the 28 days and also break the number of vans clause as well.

However a lot of them aren’t in popular places. They’re just village pubs in the middle nowhere that are good for nothing other than breaking a journey.

We once stayed at a farm shop that shut at 5.30, locked us in and left us on our own in their car park until the next day.

I just don’t believe that places like that are popular enough to have a problem with either clause.

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

 

[GJH]

I’m sure the popular places do break the 28 days and also break the number of vans clause as well.

However a lot of them aren’t in popular places. They’re just village pubs in the middle nowhere that are good for nothing other than breaking a journey.

We once stayed at a farm shop that shut at 5.30, locked us in and left us on our own in their car park until the next day.

I just don’t believe that places like that are popular enough to have a problem with either clause.

"in the middle of nowhere" is a criticism often leveled at CLs as making them unsuitable isn't it?
If people are working within the law then I have no problem with them but I find it difficult to believe that many will sign up to something like Britstops if they are going to obey the restrictions, especially when most of their listings indicate that they are happy to take more than the 1 (or 3) at a time allowed

 

[Deleted member 29692]

"in the middle of nowhere" is a criticism often leveled at CLs as making them unsuitable isn't it?
If people are working within the law then I have no problem with them but I find it difficult to believe that many will sign up to something like Britstops if they are going to obey the restrictions, especially when most of their listings indicate that they are happy to take more than the 1 (or 3) at a time allowed

The “middle of nowhere” thing depends on what you want. If you’re away for the weekend it’s an issue, if you just want somewhere to sleep before continuing your journey it isn’t.

As for why would they sign up, why wouldn’t they? There is no cost to them to be in the book.

 

[Barclaybasher]

I'd be surprised if it was such a small number.
Just over a year ago I contacted a pub which advertises itself as a motorhome stopover asking whether it was a full site or a CL. The reply I received was "It's just a private carpark not a site. We allow one motorhome to stay over due to space restrictions (we're very popular)." followed by a second reply "Furthermore, one motorhome (as stated on the website) for one night does not require a license."
When I said "Thanks for the clarification. From your web site I gained the impression you had space available daily. As you say, a licence isn't needed for a single motorhome - but you are restricted to 28 days in any 12 month period." I heard nothing more.
I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions as to whether a "very popular" place is restricting itself to 28 nights

Why would you contact the pub and ask such questions?

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

 

[GJH]

Why would you contact the pub and ask such questions?

As said, to ask whether it was a full site or a CL.
Why shouldn't one ask questions if one wishes?

 

[Barclaybasher]

As said, to ask whether it was a full site or a CL.
Why shouldn't one ask questions if one wishes?

What business was it to you?

Who else would ask?

 

[GJH]

The “middle of nowhere” thing depends on what you want. If you’re away for the weekend it’s an issue, if you just want somewhere to sleep before continuing your journey it isn’t.

As for why would they sign up, why wouldn’t they? There is no cost to them to be in the book.

Unless one classes compliance with the law a cost.

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

 

[GJH]

What business was it to you?

Who else would ask?

As you know I don't approve of unlicensed sites. For that reason I want to know whether a site I might consider using is licensed or certificated.
What business was it of yours to ask my reasons?

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Unless one classes compliance with the law a cost.

As I’ve already said, based on personal experience of using them as our preferred stopover in the UK, I believe a majority of them do comply with the law whether intentionally or not.

 

[Barclaybasher]

As you know I don't approve of unlicensed sites. For that reason I want to know whether a site I might consider using is licensed or certificated.
What business was it of yours to ask my reasons?

Why can't I ask your reasons?

Are you a CSI ?

a Caravan Site Inspector?

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

 

[GJH]

As I’ve already said, based on personal experience of using them as our preferred stopover in the UK, I believe a majority of them do comply with the law whether intentionally or not.

We'll have to agree to differ I think

 

[GJH]

Why can't I ask your reasons?

Are you a CSI ?

a Caravan Site Inspector?

You asked, I gave the reasons - but then just wondered what business it was of yours in the same way you wondered what business it was of mine to ask questions which interested me.
I didn't realise there were double standards involved

 

[Deleted member 29692]

We'll have to agree to differ I think

We will.

I do have to ask what you’re basing your position on though if you never use that type of location?

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

 

[Silver-Fox]

...as far as Pub car parks are concerned, I would have thought most have an outside tap, and a manhole cover.
Depends on how specific the requirements are written I guess.
And realistically, how much resource will a LA direct to enforcement?

That was my thinking when this was brought up.
Very little work required if you want to keep it to a minimum.

 

[Barclaybasher]

You asked, I gave the reasons - but then just wondered what business it was of yours in the same way you wondered what business it was of mine to ask questions which interested me.
I didn't realise there were double standards involved

I wouldn't ask anyone about their business unless it involved me

 

[GJH]

We will.

I do have to ask what you’re basing your position on though if you never use that type of location?

Seeing places advertise more than the 1 (or 3) places they can legally offer, seeing posts describing usage of more than the 1 (or 3) allowed, observance of multiple vans in place.

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

 

[GJH]

I wouldn't ask anyone about their business unless it involved me

I didn't realise that any questions I asked involved you
Believe me I have no wish to involve you in my business nor to be involved in yours

 

[Barclaybasher]

I didn't realise that any questions I asked involved you
Believe me I have no wish to involve you in my business nor to be involved in yours

But you involved the business of the pub - one you never intended visiting -WHY?

 

[Silver-Fox]

It INCLUDED touring caravans as a catch-all.
It was brought about by a report on the amount of people who were living in caravans over which the local authority had no control.

I’ll read that as losing revenue then

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