Legal definition of Motorhome v caravan

[Guest JudgeMental]

Well said crinkles! Good neighbours worth their weight in gold *-)

[KeithR]

brian, if the covenant means motor caravans are caravans,

then doesn't It follow that commercial vehicles would mean vehicles. :D

 

just an opinion from an awkward geezer!!!!!

[Guest pelmetman]

Strikes me if someone has a problem with the sight of a motorhome on their neighbours land *-)..................then that is a mental problem ;-)..................and they should seek psychiatric help >:-)

[Mike88]

pelmetman - 2013-06-26 2:41 PM

 

Strikes me if someone has a problem with the sight of a motorhome on their neighbours land *-)..................then that is a mental problem ;-)..................and they should seek psychiatric help >:-)

 

I can think of two local examples where inconsiderate people have parked their motorhomes in front of a neighbour's window cutting down on light and, more importantly, obscuring beautiful sea views. One case in particular is where a motorhomer has parked his van in front of the downstair's flat window so that person's view is of the motorhome and nothing else while the motorhomer has a brilliant outlook from his upstair's flat.

 

Before anyone mentions it , I know that you are not entitled to a view but the price premium you pay entitles you to some consideration. Anyone who parks a motorhome without consideration of others is downright selfish.

 

We do not know the precise circumstances of this case but there are two sides to every story and we should not condemn anyone without full possession of the facts.

 

That aside we do not have precise details of the covenant in question. Mine has a definitions clause and "caravan" is clearly defined. Legislation defining the word "caravan" and "motorhome" is completely irrelevant in this case. It is what the covenant states that is the issue. If there is no definition then it is a matter for the courts to decide.

[Brian Kirby]

KeithR - 2013-06-26 12:23 PM

 

brian, if the covenant means motor caravans are caravans,

then doesn't It follow that commercial vehicles would mean vehicles. :D

 

just an opinion from an awkward geezer!!!!!

Don't think so Keith. Question of noun and adjective, I think. In the first case, I would say, the noun is caravan, and motor the adjective. So, a motor caravan is a caravan with a motor, i.e a more specific kind of caravan. In ths second instance the noun is vehicle, so a commercial vehicle is a vehicle used (or, I suspect, intended to be used) for commerce, i.e. a more specific kind of vehicle.

 

I think the "commercial vehicle" linkage is the more tenuous legally, because motor cravans are not, generally used in connection with commerce, although PVCs, especially, are plainly altered commercial vehicles. I would say an A class is completely exempt from this definition, and coachbuilt vans a kind of chimera.

 

However, all are (should be! :-)) registered as "motor caravans", which I think would be argued as sufficient evidence that they are caravans, and so fall within the covenant, notwithstanding they have a motor. Just my, non-legal, opinion, but I definitely wouldn't risk the court costs of challenging the covenants on that ground!

[Guest pelmetman]

Mike88 - 2013-06-26 2:31 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-06-26 2:41 PM

 

Strikes me if someone has a problem with the sight of a motorhome on their neighbours land *-)..................then that is a mental problem ;-)..................and they should seek psychiatric help >:-)

 

I can think of two local examples where inconsiderate people have parked their motorhomes in front of a neighbour's window cutting down on light and, more importantly, obscuring beautiful sea views. One case in particular is where a motorhomer has parked his van in front of the downstair's flat window so that person's view is of the motorhome and nothing else while the motorhomer has a brilliant outlook from his upstair's flat.

 

Before anyone mentions it , I know that you are not entitled to a view but the price premium you pay entitles you to some consideration. Anyone who parks a motorhome without consideration of others is downright selfish.

 

We do not know the precise circumstances of this case but there are two sides to every story and we should not condemn anyone without full possession of the facts.

 

That aside we do not have precise details of the covenant in question. Mine has a definitions clause and "caravan" is clearly defined. Legislation defining the word "caravan" and "motorhome" is completely irrelevant in this case. It is what the covenant states that is the issue. If there is no definition then it is a matter for the courts to decide.

 

I did say their own land ;-)

[tonyishuk]

sambukashot - 2013-06-25 10:32 PM

tonyishuk - 2013-06-25 10:25 PMNot what you want to do but quite legal to park it on the road in front of your neighbours house (providing the paperwork is in order)Rgds :D :D

Hi Tonyishuk, can you be a bit more specific about the first bit of your post please "Not what you want to do"

What does that statement mean or refer to?

Thanks

Keith

Apologies ! Not well written by myself, it was a late night entry. It was the first post from my new Kindle. My thinking was that Pullingground (obviously) did want to keep the m/caravan on the drive not the road, but was it would be quite legal to park the m/caravn on his neighbour's frontage on the road. (Obviously with regard to Parking restrictions, vehicle insured etc.)I am sure the neighbour would rather not see the complete side of the motor across this/her front windows, rather than come out of the front door and glance sideways to see the m/caravan.That is the problems with neighbour disputes, there is little win-win situation when high horses are ridden.Rgds

[Guest JudgeMental]

Thank the Lord almighty that I don't have neighbors like you!lol

[Brock]

When we bought our new home there was a covenant which forbad the parking of caravans and other vehicles. Motorhomes were not specifically mentioned but our solicitor said if we parked the van on the drive, there was at least a 50% chance we would lose if challenged.

 

We asked the builder to removed the covenant but it refused saying that the covenant was there to protect the amenity for all. They did say they would only enforce the covenant if people complained. The estate had just been completed. My solicitor said if the builder was still selling houses on the estate, it would have enforced the covenant. The builder also made the point that the covenant restricts any vehicles over one and half tons.

 

Nobody objected but feeling guilty and wanting to maintain good neighbourhood relations, we decided to build a drive at the side of the property so the van was hehind the building line.

 

A neighbour complained to the council! She sent in photographs and alleged that we had built on the highway without permission (we knew we had breached the Council's rules but the drive contractors said we needn't worry) and had restricted the parking spaces on the road. We received a fierce letter from the Council warning of all sort of things if we didn't desist from using the drive. They also asked us to cover the cost of returning the road to its proper condition (we had dropped the kerb).. Unannounced, a Council Officer came out and inspected the drive. My wife noticed the Council Officer and spoke to him. She gave him the name of the drive contractor and the specifications of the work. The Council Officer said it was fine, it was sensible to park such a vehicle off the road and because the work had been undertaken to highways standard, they would be taking no further action. We are friends again with our neighbour because if they need additional parking outside our house, we let them park in front of our our new drive providing we were not using the van.

 

Based on my experience, I would check whether there is also a weight limit in the covenant.

[KeithR]

your posts are always so precise, brian,

that's why I have always valued your opinion on forum posts, 8-)

I surrender :$ :$ *-)

[Brian Kirby]

KeithR - 2013-06-27 9:25 PM

 

your posts are always so precise, brian,

that's why I have always valued your opinion on forum posts, 8-)

I surrender :$ :$ *-)

Your humble servant, Sir. :-D

[Pampam]

We always kept our van on the drive , then the kids and grand kids started returning home with their vehicles and space was getting tight, then twice we went away and twice the local police dropped a note through our letterbox just informing us that they knew we were not at home and therefore so would any local criminal and what precautions to take . So we put the van in storage which was something I never wanted to do ,and yet it's the best thing I ever did. The drive still has vehicles on it but as the kids all drift off again , no one else will know whether I'm out in van or not .so perhaps you could store your van?pp

[HymerVan]

Brian as always your logic is impeccable but I have to issue a note of caution.

As has already been said at one level an inter personal approach to resolve the problem should be vigorously tried because any lawyer involvement will involve cost and litigation potentially substantial cost.

 

That said however I consider it important that any discussion proceeds on the basis of a confident knowledge of the position of the M/H owner. Knowing that the answer is probably this or might be that doesn't get you far enough and it is only an EXPERT lawyer who will be able to give a definitive answer.

 

To illustrate this I think that the statutory definition will probably be the key factor and it is likely that that will produce an answer where motor caravans and caravans are entirely different animals. A quick perusal of the legislation including construction and use regulations shows that the definitions have varied at different times.

Furthermore the age of the restriction may be relevant because motor caravans in the form there are now may not have existed at the time of creation of the restriction whereas caravans have been around for 100+ years so perhaps an intention to prohibit motor caravans might not have existed.

There may be rules under English Law whereby the title restriction has to be interpreted in the manner least burdensome to the person affected.

I could go on but I am sure you will get my point that it aint simple so ordinary logic won't get you necessarily to the right answer !!

[Brian Kirby]

Yes, I agree Laurence. In principle, it seems to me there are only two possible approaches should the neighbour press his case. One could contest it, along all the lines you suggest, or one could acquiesce. Which one might adopt would depend in part on whether one wished to try to remain on/reinstate cordial terms with the neighbour, in part on whether one wished to prove a point of principle, and in further part on the depth of one's pocket! As was stated above, the actual wording of the covenant has not been reproduced, so any opinions expressed should be treated in that light. Personally, even if the wording were reproduced, I'd hesitate to claim that my opinion would be of any greater value than at present.

 

Paying an expert lawyer to dredge around for arguments relating to covenants and their applicability sounds to me an expensive hobby, and liable to make the subject motorhome a very expensive purchase indeed - win or lose! Hence my layman's view that the first step should be to negotiate, and if that doesn't work, to accept that the restriction probably does apply, and the consequent inconvenience, rather then risk substantial additional expenditure fighting a case with an uncertain outcome. Coward's way out I guess, but it seems to me the "spirit" of the covenant is clear enough! I am assuming that "spirit" might be given greater consideration under the kind of mediation or arbitration proceedings that seem the probable first step, were the neighbour to proceed.

[snowie]

Brian Kirby - 2013-06-29 12:24 PM

Paying an expert lawyer to dredge around for arguments relating to covenants and their applicability sounds to me an expensive hobby, and liable to make the subject motorhome a very expensive purchase indeed - win or lose! Hence my layman's view that the first step should be to negotiate, and if that doesn't work, to accept that the restriction probably does apply, and the consequent inconvenience, rather then risk substantial additional expenditure fighting a case with an uncertain outcome.

 

Not a coward's way out at all Brian. In the absence of a reasonably detailed sketch or photograph of the "site"and an abstract of the deeds I would hesitate to advise anything other than caution.

If the property is on a "ranch style" estate/development then a motorcaravan could be pretty ugly and intrusive; but we'll never know (and really, we don't want that sort of detail do we?)

regards

alan b

[Muswell]

It seems to me that the essential intent of the covenant is to restrict parking to private cars. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I think coachbuilts are pretty ugly when they are parked in front of houses and PVCs are not great either. I value my relationship with the neighbours and if they were unhappy I would think twice. Also, your van might be OK but what if you set a precedent and the next one was a tatty old 9m A class?