No Parking at Home

[HymerVan]

The above article appears to deal with the law in England and Wales. There is absolutely no reference to the Law in Scotland. Has it occurred to the editor or to the learned lawyers contributing that the Law of Scotland (with particular reference to land and buildings) is different albeit with some similarities ?

Scotland has 11% of the population of GB and 41% of the land mass so it is not insignficant. Doubtless many people in Scotland are readers and/or subscribers of MMM.

I would have expected at the very least a "health warning" about the advice not being directly applicable to Scotland. >:-)

[BGD]

What article?

[HymerVan]

"Motorcaravanning matters" article in June 2011 MMM at p185.

[w1ntersun]

AS I do not take the mag , that does not help me with what you are talking about !!!!

 

Richard

[Big Momma]

Laurence not everybody takes a subscription with the Magazine and those that purchase locally may not have had the opportunity to buy one yet. Could you please give an indication of the content of the article so that other forum users can respond. Many thanks.

[graham]

The article deals with restrictive covenants that include keeping motorhomes on your property and includes some case histories and some legal opinion.

[HymerVan]

Yes the article explains how legal conditions in title deeds to dwellinghouses may create enforcable conditions prohibiting for example storage of a motorhome on residential property. I have no reason to believe that the article is an accurate staement of the legal position IN ENGLAND..

The only point which I sought to make was to highlight that the article deals with the Law of England and NOT the law in Scotland. I questioned whether the contributors to the article appreciated this difference.

Incidentally I am not pontificating nor am I advising. In my view the truly wise no when to keep their mouth shut !

[Tony Jones]

I've not seen the latest issue yet, but it sounds like the same old British (or maybe just English?) legal insistence that a motorhome is a "caravan," even if it's the same shape as a people-carrier!

In most other European countries it's a CAR, which explains why we have so much more freedom everywhere else! Can anyone tell us how the definition works in Scotland?

[Big Momma]

HymerVan - 2011-05-03 6:57 PM

 

In my view the truly wise no when to keep their mouth shut !

 

And in my view the 'Experienced' and the 'Wise' know when it is appropriate to advise and when it is not which is not quite what your interpretation implies :D :D

[flicka]

The article was IMO to highlight that "restrictive covenants " may apply to any property, which appear to be coming more common where they are newly build estates.

The restrictive covenants may not necessarily only apply for Motorhomes or Caravans, some include any Commercial vehicle, some include restrictions on the keeping some animals, some exclude fitting of Satellite Dishes.

 

As printed, I think the article should be viewed as being specific to England & Wales, but sufficient to give an awareness to any UK resident.

As Hymer Van posted, Scottish Law has some very different quirks / anomolies, some good, some not so & although may not mirror English Law , I doubt (although I do not have a wide knowledge of Scottish Law in respect of property) it would specifically exclude a developer applying a covenant on a property or land. (just that it is much less common in practice)

 

I think awareness that restrictive covenants can create major difficulties or involve high costs to challenge them (with minimal chance of success), was what the article aimed to achieve.

[HymerVan]

Thanks Flicka for a well considered post. I agree with your comments.

I will not comment too specifically about the Scottish legal position even though, before I retired in 2009, I was a solicitor for 37 years dealing mainly commercial conveyancing ! (Being both experienced and hopefully wise Big Momma I know when it is not wise to give advice and one of these times is when you no longer hold a practicing certificate entitling you to give advice and providing indemnity for doing so).

What I am prepared to say is that enforceable title conditions can be created when land is sold and commonly are created in new housing developments. For "new" I mean houses built after the housing boom which came after post war shortages, in my memory but now almost 60 years ago. Older titles may also contain relevant prohibitions but they are less commonly found. These prohibitions typically prohibit the keeping of "caravans" on a house plot (often referred to as a feu). Sometimes the restriction will be more focussed and say that for example "only one motor car" can be kept. Some interesting interpretation issues there albeit I am inclined to think a MOTORcaravan is a Caravan. I have to say that in practice I personally never came across ACTUAL difficulties with neighbour enforcement but that does not mean that they never exist. Perhaps in Scotland there is a greater degree of tolerance, perhaps we are more laid back about this sort of thing in the way that our European cousins are (and I admire that)!

In conclusion and at the risk of being repetitious I would say :-

1.Please be aware and Warners please be aware that the Law of Scotland is not neccesarily the same as England ESPECIALLY in the areas of Land and Buildings and Leasing

2. Anyone concerned that they may have a problem should seek professional legal advice but start by reading your title deed(s) You may find them less incomprehensible than you think.

3. The article can indeed be taken as giving awareness to possible issues in Scotland

[Brian Kirby]

For some reason this post initially niggled me.  The article in question offers no more than a general caution that covenants are likely to exist on newer properties, and on their legally binding nature.  It cites cases, and quotes one solicitor's view that such covenants would be difficult to remove and, in practical terms, virtually impossible to remove on large estates.

It seems from the OP's subsequent posts that something of this nature may obtain under Scottish law, so it seems the general caution is equally valid north of the border.  As always, anyone with a legal problem should take advice on matters relevant to their case, wherever their home is sited.  In that context, I think the article is timely, generally balanced, and a gives valuable warning to all considering buying a motorhome, or a new house, and I cannot quite see the value of the OP's point regarding Scottish law.  At worst, if such restrictions do not exist under Scottish law, enquiries will soon be reveal this to be so, and if they do exist, the warning is surely of equal value north of the border.  So, what's the problem?

With reference to such restrictions on French property, yes they do exist, in much the same way, on many newer developments.  The restriction does not work in quite the same way, as there is a general legal right to park on roads in France, and special conditions seeking to prevent this for motorhomes are deemed an abuse and so not legally enforceable.  However, within the actual property boundaries, the right to park can be denied by enforceable conditions.  Some have got round this by erecting (with proper permission) garages large enough to contain the motorhome.  What is placed inside the garage is not restricted, so the motorhome is no longer an issue.

We have looked at many developments in the south east (for clarification, I refer here to Great Britain) and I have yet to find one built since about 1980 that does not contain restrictive covenants banning caravans or, more recently, recreational vehicles, as well as commercial vehicles, boats, boat trailers, etc, etc.  One even banned all such within the "development and the demised premises" which, from the accompanying plans, included both house and garage.  So, no boats etc, even in your living room, bedroom - or garage.  I thought that a bit intrusive!  Whether that was, in fact, enforceable in law I have no idea, but had no desire to bear the cost of finding out!  We're still looking, on and off, and finding it very difficult indeed to locate good recent property without such restrictions.

[Mel B]

When we looked to buy a property back in 2006 we eventually got a fantastic deal on a 2 bed detached bungalow on a corner plot on a new estate. One of my first questions was - is there a covenant about caravans/motorhomes being kept on the drive? The answer was yes and no! Any properties with a side drive were fine so long as any caravan/motorhome was on the drive behind the front edge of the property, but with the bungalow being in the far corner of a cul-de-sac the drive was actually in front of it so the property line was set at the bungalow front wall ... bummer.

 

There was a possible way round it though ... as the covenant was dependent on WHAT was determined to be the ACTUAL 'property line'. After they consulted with their solicitors, the property line was deemed to be either the front edge of the actual building structure (ie front wall of the bungalow itself) OR the actual front boundery if there was a fence or such like on it (ie not an open plan garden).

 

We got round it by paying for the builders to install a fence on the boundary line as part of the purchase which then went into the deeds as the official property line - we couldn't do it afterwards as the property line would then have remained at the bungalow front wall, and as the estate has open plan gardens and we would then be breaking the covenant about not installing front fences! *-)

[w1ntersun]

At the last house we lived in we had that restriction. On checking with the council about the covnent on trees also planted by the builder, they said it was enforcable only by the builder and the council would not take any action. The builder said it was in force but after 3 years when they pass the roads over to the council they are no longer interested in enforcing it.

 

So for 14 years we parked on our drive in front of the house and we had no problems

 

Richard

[FRANKP60]

When we first thought about buying Motor home knowing that there where covenants in force 40years old and building company had gone bust long ago,I first contacted the local council ,they did not have a problem in fact told me that as long as it was taxed and insured I could leave it on thehighway.

Local neighbours had no problem.

If you look at most covenants it states ,no Vans ,sign written vans ,caravans,trailers etc etc ,,having a quick count up this amounted to 7 vehicles in our small close on a reasonable estate.

Other thing the council said was that if neighbours where not happy they could take out a private prosecution to get the covenant enforced

 

[starvin marvin]

My understnading of Restrictive Covenants in England and Wales is that when you purchase a property with a RC you are essentially entering into a contract. For that contract to be enforcable the other party must have an interest in an adjoining property or parcel of land.

 

It is typical to find on new developments that the developer can place a RC on all plots and enforce this whilst the development is sold piecemeal, once all plots are sold and no interest remains on the whole development by the developer then there is no one to enforce it.

 

However neighbours who don't wish to see "commmercial" type vehicles/caravans may, and some do remind their neighbours that there is a "RC" which is in fact no more, these need to be challenged.

 

If the property is an infill development or adjoins the seller of the land for the development then the interest in any "RC" will past to inheritors of the title of the original property or land and any RC can then continue to be enforced. In other words the RC is placed on the adjoining land, and not on any individual.

 

As this is a contract, both parties to the contract can agree to remove the RC, usually for a consideration, ie a sum of money. Simples

[Guest pelmetman]

Lived in married quarters once, and compared to some new estates they seem quite lenient in their approach to how you live your life :D .....................................I would never live on an estate, worked on enough to know they ain't worth the hassle (lol) ....................and the posher estates are the worst 8-)

[Mel B]

Just remembered, when we bought the new bungalow, as well as the restriction on parking, there was also the restriction that we could only have a shed of a certain size, and that if we wanted one at all, we had to ask permission from the builder for it, for a 'sum' of course! So when we bought the bungalow, we asked before completion for permission for a shed and got it without having to pay them for it. :-D

[terryW]

What I would like to know is who dreams them up and why, is it the builder and if so what is the advantage to him?

 

Our last property had a restriction on anything that had a facility to sleep in, boat, caravan or otherwise, our current property in Wales has a restriction on Caravans and Commercial Vehicles.

 

 In the first case we parked our caravan on the drive for 25 years without complaint and currently have our motorhome on the drive at this property. As I use it all year round and our road is a quiet cul-de-sac I would happily park on the road but that would really cause problems for everyone in the road. In my case parking on the drive is the most awkward for me, except when I want to hook up the electrics.

 

Perhaps a challenge should be made under equal opportunities legislation, given that more motorhomes are owned by older people than younger people such a covenant on motorhomes discriminates against older people and as such could be seen as age discrimination?

 

Or perhaps our Human Rights have been infringed!!!

 

 

[Big Momma]

The Covenant within our contract permits us to park a caravan or Motorhome at the side of the house provided it does not extend beyond the border of our property e.g. front garden. However, the covenant states that Commercial or Trade vehicles of any kind are not permitted to be parked outside the property. Fortunately I have an area at the side of the house which allows me to park my 8.7metre Motorhome (Could probably get another 2 Metres as well).

 

The Commercial Vehicle rule is not enforced which is evident from the amount of Commercial vehicles throughout the whole of the Estate. The covenant also states that private cars are are not to be parked on the pavement. I have seen local enforcement officers patrol the areas and put tickets on cars which have two wheels on the pavement and two on the road but totally ignore the Commercial vehicles parked outside houses.

 

I can understand if a large vehicle parked at the side of a house were to obstruct the light into a neighbouring property but where it does not, what does it matter if it was a Caravan, a motorhome or a Commercial Vehicle (e.g. a Transit Van or similar rather than a lorry).

[Robinhood]

FRANKP60 - 2011-05-05 8:35 AM

 

........I first contacted the local council ,they did not have a problem in fact told me that as long as it was taxed and insured I could leave it on the highway.

 

I note that the article in MMM also gave this advice, and I quote "The solution for many people though is far from ideal. It means leaving the motorhome on the road. If your vehicle is registered, taxed and insured, and it's not causing a hazard, and the road is council-adopted rather than private, then no-one can complain.".

 

In fact, this would, (in most cases) be illegal under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations and/or the Construction and Use regulations, unless parking lights were in use at night. Assuming that most motorhomes exceed 1595kg unladen weight, then the following, summarised from the Highway Code, would apply:

 

 

250

 

Cars, goods vehicles not exceeding 1525 kg unladen weight, invalid carriages, motorcycles and pedal cycles may be parked without lights on a road (or lay-by) with a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) or less if they are

•at least 10 metres (32 feet) away from any junction, close to the kerb and facing in the direction of the traffic flow

•in a recognised parking place or lay-by

 

Other vehicles and trailers, and all vehicles with projecting loads, MUST NOT be left on a road at night without lights.

 

 

[Laws RVLR reg 24 & CUR reg 82(7)]

 

So, no longer a civil offence, as in breaching a covenant, but now a criminal offence!

 

[Robinhood]

Duplicate post caused by Server Error 500.

 

Text edited

[HymerVan]

An interesting aside to the regulations about parking on roads without lights is that the weight limit for cars etc of 1595kg was probably formulated at a time when cars were generally lighter. For example the Jaguar XF weighs at least 1745kg, considerably more on some specs.

[Robinhood]

The 1595kg was my typo - as in the copied text, it should be 1525kg, which converted to imperial is, of course, 1.5 imperial tons.

 

As in many of these regulations, the weights used are metric conversions from originally used imperial units, indicating their historic nature.

 

(e.g. the unladen weight limit of 3050kg relating to motorhomes allowed to use the same speed limits as cars is a conversion from 3 imperial tons.)

[Robinhood]

Another Server error >:-(