The trespass trap

[Lightning]

This new proposed law is worrying:

The trespass trap: this new law could make us strangers in our own land

The trespass trap: this new law could make us strangers in our own land | George Monbiot

A government consultation being framed as a crackdown on travelling people is an assault on all citizens’ freedoms, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

 

[MattBW]

In the England at least you can only wild camp with the land owners permission anyway, some places have blanket approval like parts of Dartmoor whereas others don't.

Wild camping by its true definition is considered camping by only carrying what you need in a backpack, being at least 100m from a road and not leaving anything behind etc. Most of what us camper owners tend to think of as wild camping isn't really its just parking. From what I can read in that article the change that it will go from trespass which is civil to a criminal offence?

If so that is quite a big change.

In my town we now have a high court injunction in place that stops un-authorised encampments on public land. Our parks are no longer being trashed and torn up but its just moved the problem to the local industrial estates. It put a stop to regular traveller invasions of playing fields and parks, but it has broadly hit the courteous and tidy ones as hard as the ones who leave all their litter behind. LIke many things in life thoughtless folks spoiling it for everyone.

There needs to places for travelling folks to stay clearly, but likewise if it was my land I wouldn't want it used by others without my permission, trashed or damaged. If we came home to a caravan on our lawn we might be upset.

I can kind of see both sides of the arguments.

 

[Lightning]

In the England at least you can only wild camp with the land owners permission anyway, some places have blanket approval like parts of Dartmoor whereas others don't.

Wild camping by its true definition is considered camping by only carrying what you need in a backpack, being at least 100m from a road and not leaving anything behind etc. Most of what us camper owners tend to think of as wild camping isn't really its just parking. From what I can read in that article the change that it will go from trespass which is civil to a criminal offence?

If so that is quite a big change.

In my town we now have a high court injunction in place that stops un-authorised encampments on public land. Our parks are no longer being trashed and torn up but its just moved the problem to the local industrial estates. It put a stop to regular traveller invasions of playing fields and parks, but it has broadly hit the courteous and tidy ones as hard as the ones who leave all their litter behind. LIke many things in life thoughtless folks spoiling it for everyone.

There needs to places for travelling folks to stay clearly, but likewise if it was my land I wouldn't want it used by others without my permission, trashed or damaged. If we came home to a caravan on our lawn we might be upset.

I can kind of see both sides of the arguments.

Yes, it becomes a criminal offence, even to stay t the side of the road. The police will have the power to confiscate any van, Campervan or motorhome permanently without any prior warning or request to move on if it’s enacted. It’s draconian and means you cannot stop overnight anywhere on public land in peace.

 

[MattBW]

Yeah that could be abused quite easily couldnt it

 

[Amarillo]

Yes, it becomes a criminal offence, even to stay t the side of the road. The police will have the power to confiscate any van, Campervan or motorhome permanently without any prior warning or request to move on if it’s enacted. It’s draconian and means you cannot stop overnight anywhere on public land in peace.

I didn’t read it like that. As always the devil will be in the detail, but the article quotes a question from the consultation which uses the word “reside”. To me that suggests some degree of permanence, not just a night or two.

Two years ago we went through a gargantuan effort to secure a place in a school for our four year old son. The problem was that we were travelling around Europe in our campervan and to afford the year away we had rented out our home and weren’t paying the council tax. Greenwich Council categorised us as travellers. Fortunately, the law states that the home local authority is where the child normally “resides”, and we were able to successfully argue that our home was where we normally reside, and not the various campgrounds and wild parking spots around Europe where we stayed overnight.

So while a traveller encampment on private land might be a place where they “reside”, especially if they have no other home, that may not be the case for a casual camper who has a home to return to.

Looking at it that way, the proposal is even worse. It appears to be a way of treating the homeless less favourably than those with a home.

 

[Lightning]

I didn’t read it like that. As always the devil will be in the detail, but the article quotes a question from the consultation which uses the word “reside”. To me that suggests some degree of permanence, not just a night or two.

Two years ago we went through a gargantuan effort to secure a place in a school for our four year old son. The problem was that we were travelling around Europe in our campervan and to afford the year away we had rented out our home and weren’t paying the council tax. Greenwich Council categorised us as travellers. Fortunately, the law states that the home local authority is where the child normally “resides”, and we were able to successfully argue that our home was where we normally reside, and not the various campgrounds and wild parking spots around Europe where we stayed overnight.

So while a traveller encampment on private land might be a place where they “reside”, especially if they have no other home, that may not be the case for a casual camper who has a home to return to.

Looking at it that way, the proposal is even worse. It appears to be a way of treating the homeless less favourably than those with a home.

There is no time limit defined and there is no alternative address provision. As you say the devil is I. The detail, in the absence of explicit exclusions or limitations the law applies as written.

 

[Wongo]

There is no time limit defined and there is no alternative address provision. As you say the devil is I. The detail, in the absence of explicit exclusions or limitations the law applies as written.

 

[Amarillo]

There is no time limit defined and there is no alternative address provision. As you say the devil is I. The detail, in the absence of explicit exclusions or limitations the law applies as written.

Here’s greater detail on the consultation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/844954/Unauthorised_Encampments_-_consultation_paper.pdf

 

[Lightning]

Here’s greater detail on the consultation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/844954/Unauthorised_Encampments_-_consultation_paper.pdf

Yes, I’ve responded to that consultation survey online. The wording used is ‘intention to reside in the land for any period’. The consultation then goes on to propose including the highway under the proposal.

It’s clearly aimed at gypsies and travellers, but it is certainly not limited to them.

 

[Stoneybroke]

New proposals would need landowner to ask the person to leave first and two or more vehicles required.
That said, this is creeping into new territory which is worrying.

 

[Lightning]

New proposals would need landowner to ask the person to leave first and two or more vehicles required.
That said, this is creeping into new territory which is worrying.

The two or more vehicles is reduced from six in current legislation. If you park up alone or with one other van friend and go to sleep, or if somebody parks up next to you in the night you are a criminal under this legislation.

The new proposals do not require the landowner to ask them to leave first A specific question in the consultation is wether you agree with this.

Q3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the landowner or representatives of the landowner should take reasonable steps to ask persons occupying their land to remove themselves and their possessions before occupation of the land can be considered a criminal offence?

 

[Digger]

I would not worry too much. Some see doom and gloom everywhere but reality and practicality normally see a reasonable outcome. We in Scotland have a right to roam but closer reading notice it specifically excludes motor vehicles - and driving onto private land is a criminal offence wheras before there was no law of trespass in Scotland before this legislation (although a land owner could throw you off ). No, wait , respond to the document and save up for you ID Buzz if you can afford it. Me, I'm making the most of my time on this planet rather than worrying about what may or not happen in some time in the future.

 

[Lightning]

I would not worry too much. Some see doom and gloom everywhere but reality and practicality normally see a reasonable outcome. We in Scotland have a right to roam but closer reading notice it specifically excludes motor vehicles - and driving onto private land is a criminal offence wheras before there was no law of trespass in Scotland before this legislation (although a land owner could throw you off ). No, wait , respond to the document and save up for you ID Buzz if you can afford it. Me, I'm making the most of my time on this planet rather than worrying about what may or not happen in some time in the future.

Well, as this proposal includes van dwellers on the highway it has the potential to reduce the enjoyment of my time on this planet, as I live in my van on the highway at the moment, and I don’t want it confiscated or the risk of it being confiscated without warning! I also can no longer go and live in Europe in my van for more than 90 days after 2020. So, as I am stuck here and I have a long time left on this and as the consultation is now open to influence the outcome, now is a good time to address the issue.
It’s still ok to camp on the highway in Scotland by the way.

Buying the next camper is separate problem but I hope mine will last at least 30 years.

 

[Amarillo]

Yes, I’ve responded to that consultation survey online. The wording used is ‘intention to reside in the land for any period’. The consultation then goes on to propose including the highway under the proposal.

It’s clearly aimed at gypsies and travellers, but it is certainly not limited to them.

I had an ironic laugh when I read "intention to reside in the land for any period". I had already googled the definition of "reside" which returned "have one's permanent home in a particular place." I.e. a campsite is not where you reside if the stay is temporary. Then in a way only public bodies can, the definition becomes befuddled.

Elsewhere in the document the term "encampment" is used, and that is a temporary arrangement.

 

[Lightning]

I had an ironic laugh when I read "intention to reside in the land for any period". I had already googled the definition of "reside" which returned "have one's permanent home in a particular place." I.e. a campsite is not where you reside if the stay is temporary. Then in a way only public bodies can, the definition becomes befuddled.

Elsewhere in the document the term "encampment" is used, and that is a temporary arrangement.

I think it’s possibly intentionally vague so that it can be interpreted in whichever way suits them, until it’s tested in court.

 

[Amarillo]

New proposals would need landowner to ask the person to leave first and two or more vehicles required.

If that is indeed the proposal, it makes some sense. If someone parks on my driveway and camps without consent it is civil trespass. If I ask them to leave and they do so there matter ends there unless I sue for damages. If I ask them to leave and they refuse it then becomes criminal trespass, enforceable by the police.

If that is the correct interpretation of the proposal, it has my support.

 

[Lightning]

If that is indeed the proposal, it makes some sense. If someone parks on my driveway and camps without consent it is civil trespass. If I ask them to leave and they do so there matter ends there unless I sue for damages. If I ask them to leave and they refuse it then becomes criminal trespass, enforceable by the police.

If that is the correct interpretation of the proposal, it has my support.

It is not the correct interpretation. It’s a possible outcome. It’s an open question in the consultation as to whether this is how it should be or not. This includes the highway.

 

[T6 CFO]

I think it’s possibly intentionally vague so that it can be interpreted in whichever way suits them, until it’s tested in court.

There’s no way I’m reading all this but in my experience laws are nearly always tested to breaking point by lawyers or those wishing to interpret them in a manner that suits them. It’s all noise and money for lawyers.
At the end of the day by either redrafting or case law they get back to enforcing whatever the original purpose was.
Those seeking to bend it to their will rather than its intention usually end up the poorer.
I doubt in this case it’s to stop us enjoying our Cali’s.




Mike

 

[Joker 1299]

As you say the devil is I.

Surely not! A Freudian slip maybe?

 

[Lightning]

There’s no way I’m reading all this but in my experience laws are nearly always tested to breaking point by lawyers or those wishing to interpret them in a manner that suits them. It’s all noise and money for lawyers.
At the end of the day by either redrafting or case law they get back to enforcing whatever the original purpose was.
Those seeking to bend it to their will rather than its intention usually end up the poorer.
I doubt in this case it’s to stop us enjoying our Cali’s.




Mike

So without reading what’s actually being proposed, you are sure it will be ok. That’s a relief!

it’s not intended to stop us enjoying our Cali’s, but it can and probably will be used that way. Bans will no longer be necessary as it will become a criminal offence to park up anywhere.

 

[Joker 1299]

What about LGV’s parking up overnight and drivers sleeping in their cabs?

 

[Lightning]

What about LGV’s parking up overnight and drivers sleeping in their cabs?

What about them? The law makes the intent to reside for any period of time in any vehicle a criminal offence. How they choose to interpret and apply the law is up to them.

 

[Joker 1299]

Yes, it becomes a criminal offence, even to stay t the side of the road. The police will have the power to confiscate any van, Campervan or motorhome permanently without any prior warning or request to move on if it’s enacted. It’s draconian and means you cannot stop overnight anywhere on public land in peace.

As I understand it, the proposal is to criminalise trespass. You are not trespassing on public land. You can only trespass on private land.

 

[Lightning]

If

As I understand it, the proposal is to criminalise trespass. You are not trespassing on public land. You can only trespass on private land.

The proposal explicitly includes public land. The highway is public land and a specific question in the consultation relates to this.

 

[Lightning]

If

The proposal explicitly includes public land. The highway is public land and a specific question in the consultation relates to this.

This one:
Q12: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the police should be granted the power to remove trespassers from land that forms part of the highway?

We believe giving the police powers to seize property, including vehicles, could enable the police to remove unauthorised encampments more quickly and act as deterrent to setting up an unauthorised encampment. We would welcome views on whether to grant police powers to seize property from trespassers and in what circumstances they should have these powers.