Parking Fine Imposed on Private Landowner Triggers High Court Test Case

9th July 2020 By

A fine imposed on a householder for parking her Land Rover on her own land put the conflict between private ownership and public access to the road network in high relief and provided the subject matter for an important High Court test case.

For many years the householder had regularly parked her car on a strip of pavement outside her home. The strip, which she and her husband owned, lay between their front hedge and the road. She was incensed when a local authority parking warden put a ticket on her windscreen, but her appeal was rejected by a parking adjudicator. The penalty was also confirmed by another adjudicator on review.

In upholding her challenge to that outcome, the Court rejected the local authority’s argument that the strip was deemed to have been dedicated as a public highway because members of the public had enjoyed access to it, as of right and without interruption, for 20 years or more. The reviewing adjudicator had made an error of law in concluding that such public access was not interrupted by the frequent presence of the couple’s parked cars on the strip.

The Court found that the strip could also not be viewed as a road to which the public has access, within the meaning of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. During each of the 13 years in which the couple had owned their home, they had parked cars on the strip about 200 times, thus regularly impeding public access.

Had it been necessary to do so, the Court noted that it would have found that any implied licence that members of the public had to access the strip had been inoperable on the day the ticket was issued, due to the presence of the Land Rover. The local authority was directed to cancel the parking ticket.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Tempted By an Exotic Investment Scheme? Is It Too Good to Be True?

7th August, 2020 By

It is easy to be tempted by exotic investment schemes that promise spectacular returns. However, as a High Court case strikingly showed, they are often too good to be true and it is always wise to get an independent professional to check them out before parting with your money. More than 100 small investors were persuaded to dig into their pension pots to buy 15-year leases of trees which had been inoculated with truffle spores. They spent at least £6.5 million on almost 9,000 leases, at a price of between...

Divorce – Home-Maker Wife Compensated for Sacrificing Her Career

4th August, 2020 By

Despite the drive towards achieving economic equality between the sexes, it remains common for women to give up their promising careers to support their husbands and devote themselves to child rearing and home-making. An important High Court ruling addressed the burning issue of how such sacrifices should be quantified in money terms in the event of divorce. The case concerned a former couple who met when they were both working for a leading law firm. After their relationship blossomed, they decided that it would be inappropriate for them to continue...

High-Profile Homeowners Can Divert Footpath Away From Their Garden

30th July, 2020 By

Ramblers love footpaths, but the same cannot be said for landowners concerned to protect their privacy and security. That was certainly so in one case in which homeowners with a high media profile won the right to divert a footpath which crossed their garden within sight of their croquet lawn. The owners applied to the local authority for a diversion order in respect of about 228 metres of footpath which crossed their property. They said that ramblers on the path had a view of their private garden and could see...

High Court Acts to Rescue Company After Sole Shareholder's Death

27th July, 2020 By

If you are an entrepreneur and own your own company, that is all the more reason why you should take professional advice regarding the consequences that might arise on your death. In an unusual High Court case on point, a farm contracting business was left rudderless by the demise of its founder. The founder was the company's sole director and shareholder. His shares passed automatically to the executors of his estate when he died. However, the company was left without a director and its bank stated that it would not...