37 replies to this topic

[Dyna]

What if i sign my cars over to my company ? then surely i can have as many as i want

That would be even worse since then it's a business and not domestic use.

Cheers Dyna

[Dyna]

Update:

Been at the lawyers office talking my Solicitor it was an interesting meeting and quite a few points where made.

First lets put some quotes out there in regards to the initial enforcement notice sent by the LPA (local planning authority) and later up hold by the PA (planning authority).

First what they state I'm guilty of:

“The Matters Which Appear To Constitute the Breach of Planning Control.

Without planning permission, a material change of use of the land edged read on the attached plan from a single dwelling house (and purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such) to a mixed use comprising a dwelling house and for purposes of vehicle storage”

Then what they tell me that I need to do in order to comply and thereby avoid any fines.

“Discontinue the use of the land for the purposes of vehicle parking (save for such domestic parking of no more than six vehicles as may be regarded as incidental to the enjoyment of the Land as a single dwelling house). "


If you interpret this to the letter, and my local council would. It means the following:

* I'm only allowed to park vehicles (When a vehicle is not moved/used regularly it's not allowed on the property since it's not domestically parked).
* I'm not allowed to restore a car. (Restoring a car during a period of time violates that I'm only allowed to domestic park six vehicles)
* Guest are not allowed to park temporarily on the property if the total number of vehicle parked is six.

NOTE: That a vehicle is more than just a car, a bicycle (pushbike) is also a vehicle. Yes this is how absurd this is according to my Solicitor.

My solicitor was surprised that there was no amendment or clarification in the PA decision to uphold the LPA enforcement notice.

His point to appeal it would be:

* That there has been no change of use from incidental enjoyment of the single dwelling house to anything else and that the PA and LPA has made the wrong interpretation of the law.

Reason being is that it should be regarded as incidental enjoyment of the single dwelling house to be engaging in a domestic hobby with classic car. That the usage is different from a normal vehicle in the sense that you are using it like you would use your stamp collection in other words infrequently and that you might not even drive it but trailer it to events, it might also be that the only thing you use it for is to restore it. It has to be along this lines, or similar according to him.

* The human right act (HRA) article 7

Reason being that it impends on the right I have to enjoy my life and enjoy my property (i.e. cars) and that the LPA/PA without reason causing hardship and stress depriving me from enjoying my life and enjoying my property.


Beside the two above, there must be some form of clarifications and further appeal reasons (this is more loosely written).

What's the reasoning behind six cars, there is also no temporary allowance giving guests right to park for the evening.

The enforcement only allows domestic parking no repairs as would be incidental to the enjoyment is allowed, this is clearly wrong too. It basically banns any form of normal domestic hobby such as caravans, RV's, boats, or any other type of vehicle used in a hobby situation. The enforcement is clearly written to narrowly.

It's very clear that this enforcement notice has to be appealed, and that I need all the help I can get to do so. The appeal to the high court is very important if I do lose we might loose the rigth to have any vehicle based hobby at our property since we are in principle forced to rent a garage or similar property that has planning permission for vehicle work/storage.

Classic Car weekly is mainly wrong in it's article at least according to my solicitor. The PA has in principle banned all but parking at your property. No repairs, no storage, no nothing and the parking restrictions are set very low since it's not cars we are counting but vehicles. Nor does it matter if the vehicle is parked indoors (garage, living room, attic) or outside driveway, back yard etc. It's dangerous and dark times we live in

Sincerely Dyna

PS: Sorry about painting a very dark picture, not very happy at the moment. Basically the whole family is stressed to the breaking point

Edited by Dyna, 07 January 2011 - 01:45 PM.

[Jacko-lah]

Over the years, if I recall correctly, there have been all sorts of Nutters and Collector maniacs, and car hoarders, who have been forced to reduce the size of their fleet. There was a case of the nutter with loads of 2CV's which was in the press. I thought he was possibly mentally ill.

If you've got 5 deralect cars in your garden, the council will assume that you are running a scrap yard. Often the Lease or the deeds, make it clear that certain behaviour is not acceptable. My mate had a council house and was rebuilding one cavalier mk2 in the front garden, and the council gave him 28 days to remove it, because it wasn't in keeping with expectations for gardens. My house that I own (actually owe about £2K and then it's all mine - roll on april !!! ) has a clause in the deeds that says cavavans can not be kept at the house. (and neither can rabbits or hens or homing pidgeons. I'm guessing that back in 1966 the developer had to agree to various planning ideals in order to get permission to build. This will vary, by location as new houses are built.

It's highly unlikely that there's ever going to be a blanket law that says "one car per bedroom" because we'd register our 'daily' cars at the adresses of relatives who had spare rooms.

[skaterava]

I'm sorry to hear about your problems. However, i can't see this being brought into force across the country, due to the implications of the HRA in British law. People bang on about how Britain is becoming a totalitarian state, but such a law, if introduced, would infringe a more fundamental human right. It would also be incredibly impractical for those who have space for more cars than bedrooms (and i believe a lot of members of parliament will be against limiting the number of cars they have). On top of that, enforcing such a law will be near impossible, considering many tuck their cars away in their garages, and many houses are very secluded and/or isolated, meaning police/councils will not be able to tell how many cars are present just by looking from the road. I have space for about 10 cars on my drive, but if you view the house from the main road, you wouldn't be able to see.

As long as you own the property, and your vehicle storage isn't causing nuisance to neighbours, i can't see how you can be liable for anything.

[Ethel]

That highlights that there can be differences for tenants over owner occupiers, but they're not down to planning authorities: your landlord can put extra restrictions in the lease and then it becomes a breach of contract.

Human rights are as easy to claim as other legal provisions, you just have to cite them in advance of any hearing. It's the UK legal system that is responsible for upholding them in the first instance, cases that make it all the way to The Hague are rare.

As a bit of an aside, our legal system is already eroding the reach of the HRA, for some reason lawyers have a problem with concept of a simple set of principles (a constitution) that ordinary citizens can understand and invoke as well as them. They manage to sidestep the issue because they have given themselves the authority to reject your claim without explaining their reasons.

Dyna,

If you think you can argue the judgement doesn't actually apply to your car collection, you could just ignore it and be prepared to start a new battle, on those grounds, when they try to enforce it. It sounds like you've run into some officials who see their role as champions of whoever complains to them rather than independent upholders of the law. This surely stems from a dispute between you and one of your neighbours, yet they can remain anonymous and have the authorities fight their corner for them - hardly fair.


It's not new law, but it is bad use of the law. The principle behind the regulation is doubtless to try and ensure housing has the appropriate infrastructure (roads) to support it. This is a dispute about balancing one person's right to enjoy their own hobbies at home and another person's right to enjoy theirs without undue nuisance. If Dyna loses his cars, I'd encourage him to take up playing the bagpipes instead.

[Bungle]

all this when local authorities have no money

you would of thought they could find something else to spend their money on

[Dyna]

If it was the case that I was a nutter or hoarder it would be a case but I'm not:

Not to go into extreme specifics but:

I have no car that are in parts visible (if they are under restoration or deconstruction they are in a garage).
All my classic cars are either in a garage on under proper car covers (that not being tarpaulins, but silver gray car covers).
Bar one all cars are on my drive way or in my garage.
There are no parts stored outside bar one engine on my patio which isn't visible from any of my neighbors.
All garden/home tools (lawnmower, washer, etc) are stored under a tarp, in a high fenced area of my garden which isn't visible from any of my neighbors.

I do hate when it looks like a scrapheap so I run a tight ship here. There is no deads/convents on the house limiting my use/storage of vehicles.

And yes there might very well be a blanket case law limiting the usage you have of your hose so that you can only domestically park X cars. It doesn't matter if they are registered to your aunt it's actually making your case even worse.

Sincerely Dyna

PS: Congrat to soon being 100% owner of your house..

Over the years, if I recall correctly, there have been all sorts of Nutters and Collector maniacs, and car hoarders, who have been forced to reduce the size of their fleet. There was a case of the nutter with loads of 2CV's which was in the press. I thought he was possibly mentally ill.

If you've got 5 deralect cars in your garden, the council will assume that you are running a scrap yard. Often the Lease or the deeds, make it clear that certain behaviour is not acceptable. My mate had a council house and was rebuilding one cavalier mk2 in the front garden, and the council gave him 28 days to remove it, because it wasn't in keeping with expectations for gardens. My house that I own (actually owe about £2K and then it's all mine - roll on april !!! ) has a clause in the deeds that says cavavans can not be kept at the house. (and neither can rabbits or hens or homing pidgeons. I'm guessing that back in 1966 the developer had to agree to various planning ideals in order to get permission to build. This will vary, by location as new houses are built.

It's highly unlikely that there's ever going to be a blanket law that says "one car per bedroom" because we'd register our 'daily' cars at the adresses of relatives who had spare rooms.

[Dyna]

Hi Ethel,

Yes it's stemming from a neighbor dispute (the one to the north) great friend with the once to the south. It's very true that it's quite unfair that they fight with "aid" while I have to foot the whole bill defending my self and my property. Well it's ours but I'm the one that has the time dealing with all this.

Thought I would put things into perspective posting a pic of me and my car on our front driveway.



As you can see it's a rather large driveway since it's not small cars (Cadillacs, Buick Roadmaster, Jaguar etc). Still it's very tidy. Picture taken by my friendly neighbor from the South and the complaining neighbor (North( is the one behind the hedge with very little view of our property.


Sincerely Dyna

Dyna,

If you think you can argue the judgement doesn't actually apply to your car collection, you could just ignore it and be prepared to start a new battle, on those grounds, when they try to enforce it. It sounds like you've run into some officials who see their role as champions of whoever complains to them rather than independent upholders of the law. This surely stems from a dispute between you and one of your neighbours, yet they can remain anonymous and have the authorities fight their corner for them - hardly fair.


It's not new law, but it is bad use of the law. The principle behind the regulation is doubtless to try and ensure housing has the appropriate infrastructure (roads) to support it. This is a dispute about balancing one person's right to enjoy their own hobbies at home and another person's right to enjoy theirs without undue nuisance. If Dyna loses his cars, I'd encourage him to take up playing the bagpipes instead.