fbpx

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

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...

Flat Owner Not Liable for Pre-existing Structural Issues

16th April, 2024 By

When building owners carry out works on their property, are they liable for damage to adjoining properties that results from pre-existing structural issues? The Court of Appeal recently provided welcome clarification on that question. The owner of a ground-floor flat wished to extend it by building out into his garden. He served notices on owners of adjoining properties, as required by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The works caused the rear wall of two adjoining properties to drop by about 2 mm, which led to internal walls and floor...

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...