blocking driveway

Nearly_Old

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Maybe you could post something to back up your claims?

The most common case quoted on line is Nagy v Weston [1965] where the intial guilty verdict was overturned on appeal that was summarised as below:


Nagy v Weston [1965] 1 All ER 78; [1965] 1 WLR 280
1965
QBD
Lord Parker CJ
Crime, Land
The defendant was prosecuted after selling hot dogs from a van parked on a busy street in Oxford. The court was asked when such would become an illegal obstruction. Held: Such a use "could not . . be said to be incidental to the right to pass and repass along the street."
Lord Parker CJ said: "It is undoubtedly true - counsel for the appellant is quite right - that there must be proof that the user in question was an unreasonable use. Whether or not the user amounting to an obstruction is or is not an unreasonable use of the highway is a question of fact. It depends on all the circumstances, including the length of time the obstruction continues, the place where it occurs, the purpose for which it is done, and, of course, whether it does in fact cause an actual obstruction as opposed to a potential obstruction."

The original prosecution was for parking a burger van, tables and chairs on the highway (road) it was overturned on the basis that there was no obstruction to users passing and re-passing on the highway (road). There is a difference between obstructing a road and obstructing a footway/footpath. For a road there does not have to be an actual obstruction and action can be taken against a potential obstruction but for a footway/footpath there a) has to be an actual obstruction; and b) it has to be reported.


These links provides detail of the of opinions available on line applicable to the OP's question:

https://greenandblackcross.org/guides/laws/3-obstruction-of-the-highway/
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/parking-near-private-driveway-what-law.html


See pages 3 & 4 for various other cases dealing with obstruction
http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/files/SN01170.pdf


This last link provides some background to the development of the current law which was originally the right to "pass and re-pass along (or across) the highway".
https://www.nicholashancox.co.uk/highway_obstruction.htm


The origin of the right to pass and re-pass along the highway goes back to early development of highways when landowners demanded such as part of the purchase/use of their land. Interestingly at some point it also included the "or across" which makes sense in rural areas where farm machinery/animals may need to move across the highway.

AndyMc.....

Nearly_Old wrote: »

The most common case quoted on line is Nagy v Weston [1965] where the intial guilty verdict was overturned on appeal that was summarised as below:


Nagy v Weston [1965] 1 All ER 78; [1965] 1 WLR 280
1965
QBD
Lord Parker CJ
Crime, Land
The defendant was prosecuted after selling hot dogs from a van parked on a busy street in Oxford. The court was asked when such would become an illegal obstruction. Held: Such a use "could not . . be said to be incidental to the right to pass and repass along the street."
Lord Parker CJ said: "It is undoubtedly true - counsel for the appellant is quite right - that there must be proof that the user in question was an unreasonable use. Whether or not the user amounting to an obstruction is or is not an unreasonable use of the highway is a question of fact. It depends on all the circumstances, including the length of time the obstruction continues, the place where it occurs, the purpose for which it is done, and, of course, whether it does in fact cause an actual obstruction as opposed to a potential obstruction."

The original prosecution was for parking a burger van, tables and chairs on the highway (road) it was overturned on the basis that there was no obstruction to users passing and re-passing on the highway (road). There is a difference between obstructing a road and obstructing a footway/footpath. For a road there does not have to be an actual obstruction and action can be taken against a potential obstruction but for a footway/footpath there a) has to be an actual obstruction; and b) it has to be reported.


These links provides detail of the of opinions available on line applicable to the OP's question:

https://greenandblackcross.org/guides/laws/3-obstruction-of-the-highway/
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/parking-near-private-driveway-what-law.html


See pages 3 & 4 for various other cases dealing with obstruction
http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/files/SN01170.pdf


This last link provides some background to the development of the current law which was originally the right to "pass and re-pass along (or across) the highway".
https://www.nicholashancox.co.uk/highway_obstruction.htm


The origin of the right to pass and re-pass along the highway goes back to early development of highways when landowners demanded such as part of the purchase/use of their land. Interestingly at some point it also included the "or across" which makes sense in rural areas where farm machinery/animals may need to move across the highway.

Yet you completely ignore unnecessary obstruction.

Nearly_Old

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Yet you completely ignore unnecessary obstruction.

With respect you appear not to have looked at the cases included in this link
http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/files/SN01170.pdf
that cover unnecessary obstruction.


Unnecessary obstruction still only deals with free passage along the highway.

AndyMc.....

Nearly_Old wrote: »

With respect you appear not to have looked at the cases included in this link
http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/files/SN01170.pdf
that cover unnecessary obstruction.


Unnecessary obstruction still only deals with free passage along the highway.

So you keep wrongly stating.

103. No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road.

Yet nowhere's in the regs does it mention a highway.

[Deleted User]

BillDee wrote: »

If your car is blocked in on your driveway the police will instruct the "blocker" to move (I know that for sure).

My mother used to live in the centre of town, and every Tom !!!! & Harry used her drive as a free car park. On the day she moved house, there was a car blocking the drive so that the removal van couldn't get in.

We called the police, who turned up, shrugged their shoulders, and said that it was nothing to do with them as it was on private property, and went away again.

They seemed quite happy that the van parked on double yellow lines on a Saturday morning though, gridlocking the whole town centre.

Nearly_Old

AndyMc..... wrote: »

So you keep wrongly stating.

103. No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road.

Yet nowhere's in the regs does it mention a highway.

Are you sure:


Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 creates the offence of unnecessary obstruction. ... An offence is committed if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way willfully obstructs the free passage along a highway.


The road is just one part of the highway and all the cases available on line only deal with obstructions to traffic on the road/highway. Regulation 103 is generally read in conjunction with Section 137 of the Highways Act to determine if the unnecessary obstruction is wilfull so both wordings are in effect used.

AndyMc.....

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Are you sure:


Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 creates the offence of unnecessary obstruction. ... An offence is committed if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way willfully obstructs the free passage along a highway.


The road is just one part of the highway

Adding to the legislation doesn't make you right.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/103/made

Undervalued

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Exactly why no offence has been commited if the parked vehicle is not "Wilfully obstructing the free passage of the highway" or "causing an unecessary obstruction to the road".



There appears to be nothing in the current statutes that refers to obstructing an access to the highway but only to free passage along the highway.The blocked in vehicle is on private land not on the highway and therefore its free passage along the highway is not being obstructed.

But is will be on the highway as soon as the front wheels leave the private property and start to cross the footpath towards the dropped kerb! The footpath is part of the highway and you are allowed to drive across it for the purpose of entry and exit providing there is a dropped kerb.

That is the interpretation the police use around here if you are blocked in. They will come, subject to other priorities, but they will not attend if you are blocked from getting back onto your own driveway. To be honest I don't follow the logic in that as I think your passage along the highway could include wanting to turn off it as well but unless somebody takes it to court to get a ruling that is they way it is round here.

unholyangel

Undervalued wrote: »

But is will be on the highway as soon as the front wheels leave the private property and start to cross the footpath towards the dropped kerb! The footpath is part of the highway and you are allowed to drive across it for the purpose of entry and exit providing there is a dropped kerb.

That is the interpretation the police use around here if you are blocked in. They will come, subject to other priorities, but they will not attend if you are blocked from getting back onto your own driveway. To be honest I don't follow the logic in that as I think your passage along the highway could include wanting to turn off it as well but unless somebody takes it to court to get a ruling that is they way it is round here.

I hope you have more luck than I did trying to explain it!

Nearly_Old

unholyangel wrote: »

I hope you have more luck than I did trying to explain it!

There is nothing to explain:
[FONT=&quot]Section 22 of the Road Traffic Act 1988[/FONT][FONT=&quot] makes it an offence for the person in charge to leave a vehicle or trailer on a road in such a position or condition as to cause a danger to other road users. The OP's car is not an active road user as the vehicle is parked on a private drive. The parked car blocking the drive is not a danger to the OP's car as both are stopped so it can only be a danger to traffic passing on the road/highway. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]creates the offence of unnecessary obstruction. No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road. Assuming that the OP does have a dropped crossing then all that gives them is the right to drive across the pavement. If the OP does have a dropped crossing and it is an area of special enforcement then the council parking enforcement can deal with it as it is a parking offence to park across a dropped crossing.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended by sections 38 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Schedule 7) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]provides an offence of wilful obstruction of the highway. An offence is committed if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way willfully obstructs the free passage along a highway. The op's parked car is not passing along the highway and therefore the parked car cannot be obstructing it. As with all regulations/contracts/etc it is what the words actually say that takes precedence and not what it could be thought to extend to.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]The lack of any direct regulation in respect of a right of access is a bit surprising but it is possible that when they were first drafted it was not seen as an issue. The regulations have been used to prevent access. E.g. there is a major plant depot adjacent to the A1 in the north east and the Highways Agency imposed time restrictions on plant leaving the depot so as to avoid delays on the A1 during peak periods.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]