is it illegal?

[^woody^]

So based on the above thinking, its the same as if for instance, a cul-de-sac was blocked across the entrance, but if there were no cars down the cul-de-sac, then this would not be an obstruction?

I've always understood it to be obstruction either way if there is a car on the property or not.

If there is a dropped kerb, then the right to pass exists both ways. Its not obstruction of the vehicle, but obstruction of the highway.

And it is a Police matter, but they will try and fob you off that it is a Council issue, but that is not correct.

 

[imamartian]

but doesn't it make a difference whether you block access to a public highway, or to private land?

 

[Thermo]

Thermo.

If this is the section you are referring to;

Obstructing free passage - Section 137 Highways Act 1980

If a person without lawful authority or excuse in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway, they are guilty of an offence.

This deals with the Highway itself - not access from private property onto it.

The Highways Act is dealt with, in the main, by the Local Authority.

yes i am, it is a power often used by the police, and it is used in this situation as it is obstructing someones passage onto the highway, but not off of it.

Woody if a cul de sac is blocked then that is staright forward obstruction of the highway.

 

[tim west]

If someone was blocking my entrance I don't think i'd like to get the police involved

 

[^woody^]

I'll try and find the relevant section of law, but AIUI strictly any parked vehicle is causing an obstruction of the highway, but the actual offence is causing an unnecessary obstruction.

There is no difference whether you block someone in or out, it is still obstructing someones lawful right to use/exit the highway

Edit

Try this - Regulation 103 Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 - (causing or permitting a vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause an unnecessary obstruction)

 

[Softus]

There is no difference whether you block someone in or out, it is still obstructing someones lawful right to use/exit the highway

So how do you explain the fact that many people believe that not to be the case?

Try this - Regulation 103 Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 - (causing or permitting a vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause an unnecessary obstruction)

What's your interpretation of that?

 

[dave.m]

politely tell the driver he is contravening Highway Code Rule 243: either by speaking to him or if not in attendance, wrap the message around a brick and leave it on his driving seat.

243

DO NOT stop or park

* near a school entrance
* anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
* at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank
* on the approach to a level crossing/tramway crossing
* opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
* near the brow of a hill or hump bridge
* opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
* where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
* where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles
* in front of an entrance to a property
* on a bend
* where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities except when forced to do so by stationary traffic[/b]

 

[Rob]

politely tell the driver he is contravening Highway Code Rule 243:

243

DO NOT stop or park


* in front of an entrance to a property

Pretty vague dont ya think! I dont have a drive yet people park outside my house all the time. Perhaps id better go and confront them with 243!

If you dont own the bit of road (which no one does) outside your house then you cant stop anyone parking there.

 

[^woody^]

So how do you explain the fact that many people believe that not to be the case?

Well. how many people think that we never landed on the moon or that Jfk was shot as part of some elaborate plot? A lot of it is "they heard" or their friend told them.

And then the urban myth becomes fact.

There is confusion when Police class it as a low priority, or when the Police refer the complainant to the council (who can take action)

When the Police do act (as they should), that regulation is the one used

 

[Softus]

Well. how many people think that we never landed on the moon or that Jfk was shot as part of some elaborate plot?

I don't know. You seem to have infinitely widened the scope of my question, whereas I was asking only within the context of this topic.

A lot of it is "they heard" or their friend told them.

And in your case, is your understanding based on something else, for example case law?

There is confusion when Police class it as a low priority, or when the Police refer the complainant to the council (who can take action)

What action can the council take?

When the Police do act (as they should), that regulation is the one used

Again, do you have an example of that regulation being used in the successful prosecution of the driver who left his/her car parked in such a way as to prevent access to someone's empty driveway?

 

[^woody^]

What action can the council take?

Again, do you have an example of that regulation being used in the successful prosecution of the driver who left his/her car parked in such a way as to prevent access to someone's empty driveway?

The local council is the Highway Authority (but the Highway Authority may not always be the council), and they have a duty to maintain highways to certain standards - which includes enforcing the the public's right to use the highway (roads and paths) and their "enjoyment" of the highways. This includes enforcement action against nuisance, obstructions, danger and stopping/blocking.

The council has the powers to enforce regulations under the Highways Act 1980, and some other associated legislation. They do this via the magistrates court

Now the Police have there powers in various other legislation which is mainly of a Road/Traffic nature and is more to do with the vehicles and their use of the highway rather than the free passage and maintenance of the highway which the is the responsibility of the Highway Authority.

The two areas of responsibility can blur (use/passage), and this can lead to confusion of who enforces what.

With regards to obstructions, both the Highway Authority and Police have powers to remove obstructions and prosecute the offender.

With regards to "an example of that regulation being used in the successful prosecution of the driver", all I would say to that is that I never got involved in this area of enforcement, but the guy in the opposite corner of the office did the actual enforcement. If it was within the remit of us as the Highway Authority then we would pursue it, otherwise we referred it to the Police.

We had a direct contact to the local nick, and when a vehicle was reported to us blocking any drive, in out, or in any circumstance where use of the drive was prevented, then we would request immediate attendance (which would be provided depended on the circumstances)

From our work with the Police I know that the regulation I cited was the one used by the Police for the obstruction, but there may of been others. If it went to court and the case was proven - ie the homeowner could not get onto his drive due to a vehicle blocking it, then the case was proven.

 

[stargazer]

By domestic tradition, the citizen is free to do what he likes unless his proposed action is unlawful.

The common law protects the fundamental right of access to a highway, and it is summed up in the general footnotes to Section 184 Highways Act 1980, Halsbury's Statutes, Volume 20 page 347:

At common law, the owner of land adjoining a highway has a right of access to the highway from any part of his premises;

This is amplified in Halsbury's Laws 4th edition Volume 21 paragraph 110:

The right of the public is a right to pass along a highway for the purpose of legitimate travel, not to be on it, except so far as the public's presence is attributable to a reasonable and proper user of the highway as such.

In Randall v. Tarrant [1955] 1 W.L.R. 255 Lord Evershed held that:
The rights of members of the public to use the highway are, prima facie, rights of passage to and from places which the highway adjoins;

The public's right of access to a highway was considered in some detail in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jones and Another [1999]. Lord Irvine held that:

The law should not make unlawful what is commonplace and well accepted. I conclude therefore the law to be that the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass

So there

 

[blondini]

Highway Code Rule 243

DO NOT stop or park

* near a school entrance
* anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
* at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank
* on the approach to a level crossing/tramway crossing
* opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
* near the brow of a hill or hump bridge
* opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
* where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
* where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles
* in front of an entrance to a property
* on a bend
* where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities except when forced to do so by stationary traffic[/b]

Rule 243 however is not The Law, but maybe it should be.

Here is another quote from the Highway code. Note that Rule 243 does not include the words "MUST/MUST NOT" and there is no reference to any legislation.

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence"

 

[toptec]

I think we need to focus on the original question regarding blocking or obstructing somebodies driveway. We are not considering the blocking or obstruction of the highway itself.

Regulation 103 Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, frequently referred to as Unnecessary Obstruction, relates to the Highway only. The Highways Act deals with passage along the Highway only.

Presumably there is no parking restriction in this driveway case and there is no danger caused by said vehicles position then neither of the above apply.

You have to return to civil law ie Common Law as quoted by Stargazer.

In my Force area the Police do not deal with offences under the Highways Act but refer them to the Local Authority.

 

[anobium]

Slightly related to this question what is the law re the following.
A has a business for which he has 3 large transit type vans , a large 8 wheel lorry with one of those cranes on the back .
Each evening all these vehicles are parked on the road where he lives
This means that they are parked outside the houses of other people in the street.
He does not block their driveways but it makes it very difficult for anybody else to park there.
By the way in addition to the above vehicles he also has cars for him and his wife and kids which are parked in his driveway.
I was always under the impression that it is illegal has a business is not allowed to operate in a residential area.
Not my area by the way or I would have dropped a few hints to him if I was his neighbour.