Morning:
6°c
I’ll fight on, vows doctor banned from parking scooter on his own land
Terry Kirby2 Dec 2009
A medical expert today threatened to continue to “break the law” in his legal battle with a London council which has repeatedly fined him for parking on his own land.
Dr Richard Dawood has spent up to £15,000 fighting Camden council over parking tickets issued when he left his scooter on a 5ft-wide strip of land outside his office.
The Court of Appeal ruled he owns “the subsoil” of the patch outside the building in Cleveland Street, off Euston Road. But it also ruled the tarmac “surface” is subject to public access, meaning parking restrictions apply.
Lord Justice Sedley told the doctor that Camden council had the right to fine him, rejecting the 55-year-old's argument that the case should go to a judicial review. But the judge admitted the case was “counter-intuitive” and “certainly eyebrow-raising”.
Today Dr Dawood, an expert on travel medicine who also runs a private clinic in Fleet Street, said he may decide to continue to break the law. “I'm taking legal advice on what the next steps might be,” he said. “I don't want to break the law, but at the moment I don't really understand what the law is.”
He said the implications of the ruling were that any council could, in theory, fine people for parking on their own land if it was not gated. “That cannot be in the public interest,” he added.
Dr Dawood, who lives in Cricklewood, said he needed the scooter for work: “I am disgusted Camden has got nothing better to do than go after people making legitimate use of their own land.”
His dispute with the council began in 2001 when it started issuing him with tickets. When he objected, traffic wardens stopped. Although the strip is technically part of the property, dating from when it had access to a basement, to pedestrians it appears to be part of the pavement.
The tickets resumed in 2007 and Dr Dawood was hit with more than 20 fines. Most were cancelled after he complained. But he went to the parking adjudicator over five “specimen” tickets, insisting he was entitled to park on his own land. The adjudicator ruled against him and he paid the fines — but sought leave for a judicial review, which the Court of Appeal has now denied.
The strip is now marked with potted plants and signs saying: “This forecourt is private not a public footway. Authorised parking only.” Mr Dawood acknowledged he could apply for planning permission to put a fence around the strip, but said he was more concerned about the point of principle.
Parking campaigners have highlighted Camden as one of the most aggressive councils for parking enforcement. Last year it collected £39 million in parking fees, of which £22 million was down to enforcement, second only to Westminster.
A council spokesman said: “The legal ruling has been made: it is a public footpath and the parking tickets remain valid.” He pointed out there was a free scooter parking bay metres from the spot, and a number of tickets had been cancelled as a gesture of goodwill.
Reader views (23)
y not just unclip his number plate when he goes into his office and then reinstate his number plate when he goes to ride off,
- colin turner, lichfield, 31/07/2011 14:05
Report abuse
I have just found out that I am in a similar position. I live in Spelthorne Borough Council, Surrey and I (and all the other residents) have just received a letter through our doors stating that it is illegal to park our cars on the green outside our homes. This green is privately owned by all the residents and has been so since the houses were built in the 1930's. When I called Surrey County Council's Legal dept to ask why I could no longer park on privately owned land, I was informed that they own the "Topsoil" and have deemed this land as part of the highway. Therefore, it is illegal to park there.
All the resident's are now trying to work together to find out where we stand. After reading the above article, it would seem that we need to fence in the area. Originally the green had railings, these were removed during World War 2 to aid the war wffort. This was supposed to be a temporary measure and the railings were supposed to be replaced. They never were, maybe we should now start to fight for these railing to be re-instated.
I expect to see many more people fighting for the right to park on their own land as councils realise that there could be a source of income.
- Darren, Surrey, 23/01/2010 12:29
Report abuse
Dr Dawood should move to Naples, Italy, forthwith. You can park anywhere you like there. No worries!
- Michael in Rome
- Michael Ivy, Roma, Italia, 15/12/2009 16:32
Report abuse
So now the doctor will just put up some sort of fence and then he can park his scooter on his private land again without Camden ticketing him but pedestrians will have a smaller pavement on an already narrow road. Well done Camden, that is really going to help pedestrians. It would have been better just to let him carry on parking on HIS land and sharing it with pedestrians, now we will have an even smaller pavement so Camden has only made things worse. I wish councils would think before doing these stupid things.
- Alice, Camden, London, 03/12/2009 17:04
Report abuse
So if this land is part of the public highway it must be the responsibility of the Social Republic of Camden to maintain and repair it.
- Adam, Harrow, UK, 03/12/2009 12:53
Report abuse
This seems to be connected with Camden counsels membership of PIP “Partnership In Parking” a consortium set-up by Westminster council with the intention to supply a one-stop pay for parking solution across the UK.
At the moment Westminster charge for motorcycle and have announced on their web site that vehicles parked on private land will be ticketed.
They have declared their intention to have the same system throughout Briton.
Parking on your one land would mean avoiding raying parking charges and I suspect this is something they intend to discourage, also it makes the comment by the counsel spokesman seem cynical as if Westminster get there way it will not be free for long.
- Nick, Carshalton Surrey, 03/12/2009 08:41
Report abuse
I used to put a bag over the rear number plate and cover the tax disc. You do not need to display a number plate when it is private property.( but looks like this is now an issue). There used to be a law that they could not touch the bike so they could not expose the plate, so they could not issue a ticket. That was years ago so maybe you have to detach the number plate now. I had appealed many times in Westminster and RBK&C often copying the title deeds was enough to win the case. Sad..
- Guy, London, 03/12/2009 07:59
Report abuse
Keep the fight going Dr, Dont have this problem here, and everybody is happy
- Brian Smith, chonburi Thailand, 03/12/2009 03:57
Report abuse
When councils make a mistake they never admit to it. This bit of land perhps should have an "adoption " agreement which may be defective. In my case I own a private road which runs through my land . The council say its an "adopted highway" when I asked for a copy of the "adoption agreement" the council refused to send me a copy. I complained to the "ombudsman" who sent me a copy, the "adoption agreement" doesn't concern my lane, but the council still wont de-adopt the road.
- Ann Other View, Long In The Tooth Lane., 02/12/2009 22:03
Report abuse
Well said Jo. The judge ruled the tarmac “surface” is subject to public access, therefore in legal terms he has no right to park (or doesa anyone else) over land marked as public access/public right of way. I used to own a field (use: Grazing only) at the back of my house and there was a public path running across it. The land was owned by me but I have no rights over doing anything to it or parking on that section as the public have a right of access over it. If this is the case, if i were him, i'd settle and not park there anymore or spend more money and see a land agent. A shame though public money is wasted in such a trivial matter.
- David, London, 02/12/2009 16:28
Report abuse
These Councils employ these Parking enforcement companies to make as much money for them anyway they see fit. It's not about controlling parking when a motorised two wheeler never causes parking snarl ups and congestions never mind traffic jams. The Councils are the crooks and spivs !
- Joe, Swanley Kent, 02/12/2009 15:29
Report abuse
Surely he wouldn't need planning permission for a fence if it was under 6ft tall? Just slap a fence in and Bob's your mothers brother.
- Bob, Cheam, 02/12/2009 14:39
Report abuse
Surely he should not be driving across the footway to park anyway unless he is trying to drum up trade for his surgery? You have to question the sanity of someone who spends £15,000 on parking tickets when there is a free bay only a matter of feet away?
- Bob, london, 02/12/2009 13:49
Report abuse
I’d be very surprised if anyone outside of Camden Council supports Camden Council so why do they and the law still thing they are in the right? Camden Council should be reminded by the Government that they are there to serve the residents of Camden.
- St, London, 02/12/2009 13:09
Report abuse
Why does a local council think it is acting in the public interest by ticketing a vehicle that is not causing an obstruction and is parked on private property.
As per usual this is all about revenue, and nothing whatsoever to do with traffic management.
,
- Steve M, London, 02/12/2009 13:00
Report abuse
My suggestion would be to buy a clamp and apply it to a council vehicle parked outside Camden Town Hall. Tit-for-tat.
- Neil, London, London UK, 02/12/2009 12:52
Report abuse
I'm not a lawyer but can Dr Dawood seek an injunction to stop Camden and its traffic wardens from trespassing on his land and sue for damages for past trespasses? Presumably the damages could be based on the fines incurred by Dr Dawood plus his costs plus an item for stress.
- Stephen C, London, 02/12/2009 12:32
Report abuse
I'd dig up the pavement and revert to the "subsoil" !!! Echo comments about Camden Parking being a nightmare, WHAT a waste of public money this case will have been.
- Marianne, SW France/London, 02/12/2009 11:52
Report abuse
Keep on fighting. Aggressive parking controls are just another tax and have nothing to do with controllig traffic or no-parking areas. In France they have areas where you can stop for a minute or so to post a leter etc and you dont have the fear of the Stasi parking police swooping down on you the minute the ignition is switched off.
- Strongbow Sullivan, Paris,France., 02/12/2009 11:03
Report abuse
The owners of most properties in London own the subsoil under highways to the mid point with the other side. Once a path becomes part of the public highway it will take a court order to disestablish the highway. Of course the worm can turn as happened in Tower Hamlets when they wanted to turn an underground toilet into a wine bar. As it was situated under the highway the council were not able to as they could only use the land for public not private purposes.
- Jack Spratt, Richmond, Surrey, 02/12/2009 10:36
Report abuse
Dr Richard Dawood: I urge you to context every ticket you get, and invoke an ancient law which is still in the uk statute books.
YOU CAN LEGALLY DEMAND YOUR RIGHT TO TRIAL BY COMBAT.
I have done this and after the magistrates jaw hit the floor the case was dropped.
- Roderick Mackintosh, berlin germany, 02/12/2009 10:20
Report abuse
This one is simple. If it’s private then the building owners will have to maintain the land, if the local authority have paved your land without permission they are damaging that land and should be taken to the small claims court for the cost of correcting that damage. The local authority will have to show that the land is adopted highway and the property owners need to show from the deeds that they own the land
In terms of the fines, if the local authority are using the land for profit making purposes then as the subsoil owner they will be entitled to a share if not all of that profit that they can demonstrate is being made. The local authority can only adopt land for the true purpose of a highway and not for any other purpose, so adopting land to create a highway to gain parking fees or street licence fees is not a reasonable basis for taking the land surface.
Where it can be shown that land was taken and used where there was no legitimate basis to do so any money must be returned to those that it was taken from.
Where a person has a right in subsoil from a highway it is arguable that they have a legitimate claim in sharing fees that are taken incidental to the use of that land. This would be on an individual basis and not from any fund that a local authority claim is the bulk tax for the community
Lastly, this ruling allows you to claim from any utility a crossing fee, a wayleave, that is buried in your subsoil beneath the highway, see a land agent.
- Jo, London, 02/12/2009 10:20
Report abuse
Caden council are an absolute nightmare. He needs to stop public access by putting a fence around the site then park his scooter on his land with the nuber plate covered with a sign say "this scooter is parked on private land."
- Ben, london, 02/12/2009 10:19
Report abuse
