Council tree stopping me getting off driveway

theoretica

Reginald74 said:

Section62 said:

Reginald74 said:

Undervalued said:

Having looked again at your photo, it appears that your van is longer than your driveway so some of it is extending over the footpath?

If so, that is also illegal!

To be honest, I really don't think it is wise to make a fuss about the tree which the council have almost certainly planted lawfully. Even if they haven't, by some obscure technicality, when in a glasshouse it is best not to throw stones! 

The OP answered that point in an earlier post.

The OP's answer doesn't change the fact it is illegal to park as shown in the photo - it only changes whether a court would accept that the obstruction was reasonable in the circumstances (if prosecuted).

And how many prosecutions are you aware of for cars obstructing the pavement? Me: none whatsoever despite people regularly parking completely on pavements.  It's a non-point.

I know of several places where there were ticketing campaigns - mostly asked for by annoyed residents. 

Reginald74

Section62 said:

Reginald74 said:

Section62 said:

Reginald74 said:

Undervalued said:

Having looked again at your photo, it appears that your van is longer than your driveway so some of it is extending over the footpath?

If so, that is also illegal!

To be honest, I really don't think it is wise to make a fuss about the tree which the council have almost certainly planted lawfully. Even if they haven't, by some obscure technicality, when in a glasshouse it is best not to throw stones! 

The OP answered that point in an earlier post.

The OP's answer doesn't change the fact it is illegal to park as shown in the photo - it only changes whether a court would accept that the obstruction was reasonable in the circumstances (if prosecuted).

And how many prosecutions are you aware of for cars obstructing the pavement? Me: none whatsoever despite people regularly parking completely on pavements.  It's a non-point.

Me: Quite a lot, especially when people draw attention to what they are doing by complaining to the council about a related issue.  Enforcement visits are also often carried out shortly after a crossover has been installed to make sure it is being used in compliance with the law and conditions of use, although not currently relevant in the OP's case.

Your anecdote doesn't make it a "non-point".

It's got little or nothing to do with the OPs point. It's just more self righteous distraction.

Section62

Reginald74 said:

It's got little or nothing to do with the OPs point. It's just more self righteous distraction.

No, it is what this forum is for - namely 'advice' - that parking in that way is an offence which does get enforced, contrary to your comments.

Personally I don't care whether the OP parks that way or not, which is why I didn't mention it when the OP first posted the picture - so your "self righteous" accusation is false.

But I do care if people are given false advice - because well-meaning but ill-informed people can get others into trouble, which really isn't fair.

Reginald74

I think that people post here in good faith and, all too often, get replies that make out they are an arch criminal. It's even worse when they take the time to post a photo, as that gets dissected for 'criminal' behaviour. People get accused of fraud and various other nonsense for no good reason.

This post wasn't about the OPs parking. When this was raised an explanation was given, but that wasn't good enough. A succession of contributors offered advice and self-righteous opinion about it, then others backed it up.

My view is that her parking a) isn't the point b) isn't a risk to her.

Section62

Reginald74 said:

I think that people post here in good faith and, all too often, get replies that make out they are an arch criminal. It's even worse when they take the time to post a photo, as that gets dissected for 'criminal' behaviour. People get accused of fraud and various other nonsense for no good reason.

This post wasn't about the OPs parking. When this was raised an explanation was given, but that wasn't good enough. A succession of contributors offered advice and self-righteous opinion about it, then others backed it up.

My view is that her parking a) isn't the point b) isn't a risk to her.

(a) It is 'a' point though. People have been correct to point out that complaining about the tree will highlight issues that most councils will seek to put a stop to.  If forum members confine themselves to responding only on the narrow questions people ask then the quality of advice given on this forum will suffer.  For a lot of people posting issues on the forum, part of the issue is knowing what questions to ask, and often there are more important issues than the OP (in each case) perceives.  In this case, driving over the verge is the most important issue, there should be no doubt or disagreement about that.

(b) In a way yes, parking like that is primarily a risk to blind/partially sighted people, people with other disabilities, and people using buggies/wheelchairs/pushchairs.  Which is why councils take enforcement of footway obstruction seriously.  And that's what turns it into a significant risk for the OP if they want to carry on parking there.

Reginald74

I tend to agree about the obstruction. It's the irrelevant fault-finding that grinds my gears. I have seen this put people off posting here.

Undervalued

Reginald74 said:

I think that people post here in good faith and, all too often, get replies that make out they are an arch criminal. It's even worse when they take the time to post a photo, as that gets dissected for 'criminal' behaviour. People get accused of fraud and various other nonsense for no good reason.

This post wasn't about the OPs parking. When this was raised an explanation was given, but that wasn't good enough. A succession of contributors offered advice and self-righteous opinion about it, then others backed it up.

My view is that her parking a) isn't the point b) isn't a risk to her.

Equally plenty of people post here, get correct advice which wasn't what they want to hear then throw their toys out of the pram!

Plus this is a discussion forum and not a personal advice service, so the OP doesn't get to decide which replies are acceptable or when the discussion ends.

If anybody disagrees with the advice offered or information given, they can post and say why they believe it to be wrong.

Reginald74

Undervalued said:

Reginald74 said:

I think that people post here in good faith and, all too often, get replies that make out they are an arch criminal. It's even worse when they take the time to post a photo, as that gets dissected for 'criminal' behaviour. People get accused of fraud and various other nonsense for no good reason.

This post wasn't about the OPs parking. When this was raised an explanation was given, but that wasn't good enough. A succession of contributors offered advice and self-righteous opinion about it, then others backed it up.

My view is that her parking a) isn't the point b) isn't a risk to her.

Equally plenty of people post here, get correct advice which wasn't what they want to hear then throw their toys out of the pram!

Plus this is a discussion forum and not a personal advice service, so the OP doesn't get to decide which replies are acceptable or when the discussion ends.

If anybody disagrees with the advice offered or information given, they can post and say why they believe it to be wrong.

Or fatuous; which is exactly what I am doing...

sevenhills

Section62 said:

"popular belief"

Surely, since council jobs are said to have better pay/pensions, that will attract brighter staff.

PadreM

I'd've thought that while you MIGHT be able to pay the council to increase the width of the dropped curb to nearer the tree, they're not going to remove the tree...  Tree is plainly not blocking your drive, therefore it's entirely at their discretion.  But given councils' anti-vehicle and pro-green stance, I doubt they'll do this.  They'll likely take the (dare I say) reasonable view that neighbours would rather see trees than vans, and that if a choice between your van and others' cars opposite causing you this problem, the cars are more reasonable than the van.

I appreciate this doesn't help you and I'm not anti-van!  As a PS, I'm aware that the parking of commercial vehicles (I don't know whether your van is) overnight in residential areas can cause issues with neighbours and is in some places expressly forbidden in the deeds (it is in my new-ish build estate - but is sometimes ignored).