For the first time I had a look at the website and noted the announcements on front page.

I am concerned at the wording that it is against the law to drive up past the car park . This is in effect trespass and cannot be enforced by police action.

There is good manners and common courtesey and wonder if the Friends should amend the wording acordingly

Mike

For the first time I had a look at the website and noted the announcements on front page.

I am concerned at the wording that it is against the law to drive up past the car park . This is in effect trespass and cannot be enforced by police action.

There is good manners and common courtesey and wonder if the Friends should amend the wording acordingly

Mike

Yes it can be enforced! as to drive up a non public right of way is in fact a motoring offence.

if it is a privately owned road how is that so? Surely only a traffic offence would be committed if this was not a road but in fact it is a private road used by others with permission as opposed to without permission?

Is this a criminal act or Civil law you are reffering to?

I am not trying to be provactive but just don't understand where the legislation stands on this

Mike

If a road has been classified a byway open to all traffic - BOAT or Other road with public access" - ORPA Then it subject to road traffic law, but legal to drive. (The queens highway)

If it is private land then this is a offence in it self (Road Traffic Act Section 34).
The common result of being caught is 3 points and a fine, or you could be served with a section 59 (notice of vehicle seizure)

As the law stands, whether something is a 'private' road or not is not really the issue - what is relevant is whether something is a public footpath, bridleway or BOAT (byway open to all traffic). If it is not a BOAT then taking a vehicle on it is a criminal offence - if you have a look on the BBC news website then you'll find this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4578773.stm 
Interestingly, it actually seems that the path we all take up to Cwmorthin is not a public footpath either (at least not on my map) - don't know if it is access land or not.
Anyone got an up-to-date OS map ?


Sorry SimplyExploring - you beat me to it !

---

It is a footpath according to the OS website:

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/ 

Thus driving it is illegal without the landowners permission.

Chris.

Ah yes, the curious quirk of the legal system that if you drive a car in the countryside a couple of times you can have it confiscated and crushed, in the same way that it can be crushed if you don't pay your parking tickets... 😠

Of course, if you commit an offence against the person, you'll probably get a £150 fine and told not to do it again.

Um. Anyway, before I go off on a long rant...

1. A lot of damage is being done to the Cwmorthin valley by dirt-bikes and anything that can be done to prevent that from happening is a Good Thing.

2. Vehicular access up the track beyond the car park is only by permission of the landowner and this has not been granted to all and sundry who wish to visit the mine, so please don't do so!

---

I take the point re good manners - however I do take exception to the legal comments.

I think the relevant thing here is permitted vehicles are being taken on the track. There cannot be one law for one because you have permission of the landowners to be there and another law for another that doesn't have that permission. If you are sugesting it is a criminal action then it would apply to motor vehicles regardless of permission.

I still come back to you that this is a Tort and not a criminal action that is being suggested. I feel it is important that the friends must say and do the right thing if they are to keep and increase support. Particularly as sums of money are being raised and passed on.

Mike

Road Traffic Act 1988 (as subsequently modified)

34. Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—

(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or

(b) on any road being a footpath or bridleway,

he is guilty of an offence.

(2) It is not an offence under this section to drive a motor vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land.

(3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that it was driven in contravention of this section for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.

(4) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section prejudices the operation of—

(a) section 193 of the [1925 c. 20.] Law of Property Act 1925 (rights of the public over commons and waste lands), or

(b) any byelaws applying to any land,

or affects the law of trespass to land or any right or remedy to which a person may by law be entitled in respect of any such trespass or in particular confers a right to park a vehicle on any land.

(my emphasis in bold italics)

Furthermore, the Police Reform Act 2002 should also be considered:

59. Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—

(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and

(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,

he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

(3) Those powers are—

(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;

(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;

(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;

(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).

(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless—

(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and

(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.

(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if—

(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;

(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;

(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or

(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.

(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.

( 😎 The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.

Definitions removed

60. Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 59

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

(a) the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 59; and

(b) the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision—

(a) for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 59 to a person who is the owner of that vehicle or who, in accordance with the regulations, appears to be its owner;

(b) for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may seek to have it released;

(c) for requiring the payment of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for its release;

(d) as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may be disposed of;

(e) as to the destination—

(i) of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations; and

(ii) of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 59;

(f) for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle seized under section 59.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations shall not be liable to pay it if—

(a) the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and

(b) he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure, had not consented to its use in that manner and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented its use in that manner.

Definitions removed

[tweak]Thread title amended[/tweak]

---

There cannot be one law for one because you have permission of the landowners to be there and another law for another that doesn't have that permission.
Mike

Mike, I am sure over the years you have invited friends and relations into your home. Assuming this, then by your logic, you have open the floodgates and anyone now has the right to come in to your gaff, slob on your sofa and eat all the after eights (OK, I might be stretching it with the after eights).

---

I take the point re good manners - however I do take exception to the legal comments.

The law is the law, we did not right it!

I think the relevant thing here is permitted vehicles are being taken on the track. There cannot be one law for one because you have permission of the landowners to be there and another law for another that doesn't have that permission. If you are suggesting it is a criminal action then it would apply to motor vehicles regardless of permission.

In this case there is one rule for one and one for another. If you own the land, that gives you entitlement to drive on it.

I still come back to you that this is a Tort and not a criminal action that is being suggested. I feel it is important that the friends must say and do the right thing if they are to keep and increase support. Particularly as sums of money are being raised and passed on.

I suggest you go read the Road Traffic Act.

I still come back to you that this is a Tort and not a criminal action that is being suggested. I feel it is important that the friends must say and do the right thing if they are to keep and increase support. Particularly as sums of money are being raised and passed on.

Mike

Hi Mike, I'm sorry but I seem to be missing the point I think.
In what way is Friends of Cwmorthin not doing the right thing over vehicle traffic upto Cwmorthin?
Asides from the legal aspect which which has been clarified above.
As it stands at the moment we have an agreement for a single vehicle upto Cwmorthin at a time, dependant on one of the four of us being in it. Its not an ideal situation but the one we are stuck with at the present time.

All that has been done is for us to try and conform to the wishes of various land owners

I suggest you go read the Road Traffic Act.

I've quoted the relevant bit above ;)

If I were feeling a bit malicious, I'd query how lawful authority can be given to permit an act which is otherwise unlawful.

Having been closely involved with a case that was has been through the High Court and the Court of Appeal recently, a similar issue arose, ie can someone give authority to sanction an act which is otherwise unlawful?

There is no specific exception to suggest that a landowner can give lawful authority for a third party (or indeed themself!) to drive on such land, so where does the authority arise from?

As far as I am aware, there is no specific clause which allows landowners to drive over their own land; and permit others to do so. There is thus a 'chicken and egg' situation which could exist between the landowners' rights and the provisions of Section 32 of the RTA.


Either way, Section 32 suggests that unless the landowner has given permission, then it is an offence under the RTA to drive on the track - and that would, I presume, be a criminal offence and not a civil offence.

---

I dont actually see the point in this thread at all.

If the landowner has said that there is to be no access by 4x4 unless one of the FoC is in it, then surely thats all that matters. After all its his land.

DP

I dont actually see the point in this thread at all.

If the landowner has said that there is to be no access by 4x4 unless one of the FoC is in it, then surely thats all that matters. After all its his land.

I think the nub of the question was whether it is a civil or a criminal offence and was a query about the wording of the warning about driving up the track - and not a suggestion that it could be done without the permission of the landowner.

My initial impression would probably have been that it would be a civil offence, as Mike suggested, and I'm a little surprised to see that it appears to be a criminal offence which can be punished by having your vehicle crushed! 😮

---

My initial impression would probably have been that it would be a civil offence, as Mike suggested, and I'm a little surprised to see that it appears to be a criminal offence which can be punished by having your vehicle crushed! 😮

A bit of a hammer to crack an egg! Doubtless pushed through by some land owning MPs.

This bit is a catch all situation

Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

That could mean just about anything!

I think the nub of the question was whether it is a civil or a criminal offence and was a query about the wording of the warning about driving up the track - and not a suggestion that it could be done without the permission of the landowner.

My initial impression would probably have been that it would be a civil offence, as Mike suggested, and I'm a little surprised to see that it appears to be a criminal offence which can be punished by having your vehicle crushed! 😮

I would have thought it would be a civil offence too, but in either case I don't see the problem with describing it as 'against the law' I think the phrase covers either situation.
It's certainly more than just a matter of good manners no matter what the chances of enforcement or degree of penalty might be.

In any case the real problem is what repercussions there might be for access if people are not persuaded to walk, its only about a kilometre after all!

---

If it is trespass then it is complete nonesense about crushing vehicles, as the Landowner is the only one who could enforce and that would have to be through the courts.

It would be interesting to see a formal legal view on this rather than speculative comments from us mere mortals

It also more fun than complete my tax return before the newsreader under the stairs comes to get me!!

Mike

If it is trespass then it is complete nonesense about crushing vehicles, as the Landowner is the only one who could enforce and that would have to be through the courts.

As Sparty says, it may well be trespass as well but Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act, used in conjunction with the Police Reform Act a vehicle could be crushed but (I think) only after a warning.

I'm certainly no lawyer, but Section 34 of the RTA is pretty clear to me.

I personally find this an absolutely outrageous bit of legislation, but such is the way of our lawmakers.

---

The law was quoted above. Your vehicle can be crushed normally after a second offence. I was already aware of that law before this thread started. It would seem that the land owner doesn't even have to be involved in it!