Interesting - Page 2 - Motorhome Forums, Motorhome Discussion, Motorhome Chat

User Tag List

LinkBack Thread Tools
post #11 of 13 (permalink) Old 09-01-2016, 10:18
Senior Member
peejay's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Narfook
My Motorhome: Hymer B504 on Ducato 2.8jtd
Posts: 11,402
Thanks: 82
Thanked 264 Times in 182 Posts
Personal Aire
peejay is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to peejay For This Useful Post:
emmbeedee (09-01-2016)
Sponsored Links
post #12 of 13 (permalink) Old 09-01-2016, 14:20
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK and Katowice, Poland, plus All Europe
My Motorhome: Niesmann+Bischoff Arto 69GL (2003)
Posts: 13,081
Thanks: 919
Thanked 499 Times in 442 Posts

While we are waiting for the non-Francophones/nonTechnophones to sort themselves out I have a few comments.

I have taken an interest in campaigns against overnight restrictions on Motorcaravan Parking, including one by Andy Strangeways against various councils on the NE Coasts of England

He already had a successful campaign in Scotland to have all the signs on the national roads removed, which is why one can MH and wild camp in Scotland almost anywhere.

I came across his campaign by accident. He does not have a MH, but has come across restrictions and up against the councils in various places in the past for sleeping in his car. As a result he could see joint cause with MHomers.

He does not just campaign on the basis that the law should be changed. He challenges the legality of the restrictions that are currently in place, and has had some success and some signs have been removed.

Furthermore he has found councils who appear to have :-

1 Not followed correct procedures - either to ride roughshod or through incompetence.

2 Taken evidence into account only when it suited them to restrict parking.

3 Councils not following legal procedures to submit bye-laws for approval by central government,

4 Councils erecting signage not in accordance with central government legislation

5 Councillors or their Officers lieing in written resopnses or making Defamatory statements

6 Councillors not declaring interests, some of which were in campsites.

7 Councils refusing rightful public access to meetings

Some Councillors have resigned over a combination of these breaches.

I am not a total supporter of some of the smaller fights he picks, but I am not privy to the whole picture and, as a lawyer I know, that sometimes the other side is trying to undermine one's case with colateral damage and one has to fight that colateral issue, even if it seems irrelevant to an outsider.

These have and are continuing to be legal challenges to breaches of the law - not pleading for extra privileges.

My main point about posting the details of this campaign is that maybe there is a lesson to be learned in our attempts to gain better access for places to park.

Instead of pleading/writng letters/moaning in the press etc. maybe we should do more research about whether we are being illegally restricted in the first place.

The case that John cites in his OP is another example of some local interests and officials trying to overide freedoms of the public.

John, thanks for bringing up the whole topic.



If anyone is interested in Andy Strngeway's campaign this is the link

Andy does the work as a volunteer but is supported by donations from motorhomers.

Last edited by nicholsong; 09-01-2016 at 14:24.
nicholsong is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nicholsong For This Useful Post:
eurajohn (09-01-2016), Pudsey_Bear (09-01-2016)
post #13 of 13 (permalink) Old 09-01-2016, 22:48
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Binfield/Berkshire
My Motorhome: Burstner I709G
Posts: 532
Thanks: 13
Thanked 22 Times in 21 Posts
I think you should get the gist of it.

In a judgment of 6 January 2016, the Poitiers Administrative Court ordered the municipality of La Rochelle to remove the signs prohibiting motor homes parked in the town. The judges ruled that the panel was not foreseen by the highway code. The Liaison Committee of Camper explains why this decision of Justice is important, even beyond the simple case of La Rochelle.

It is a decision favorable to the practice of the camper that was taken by the Administrative Court of Poitiers. The origin of the case, the decision of the Mayor of La Rochelle to ask in certain areas of its common signs prohibiting parking of motorhomes. The Committee of Liaison Camper (CLC), an organization which we have already discussed on our site, first contacted the municipality of La Rochelle, before applying to the court. In question: the mayor's decision not to remove these panels, which, however, are not required by the regulations. This is indeed panels on which the camper is represented by an ideogram (see sample below cons, we addressed the CLC). Justice has therefore agreed with the CLC, and ordered the municipality to remove these panels within a month.
Also read our article on The Liaison Committee of Camper, "CLC: the court is not the only solution," here

To have a clear opinion on the decision of Justice and these consequences, we contacted the CLC, the project manager was kind enough to respond.
The town will therefore withdraw its panels, but so far, the parking of motorhomes is allowed?
CLC: "To enforce a by-law, it is necessary to inform users of the provisions. It is the role of road signs. Thus, if the mayor of La Rochelle can not use tab sign or ideogram representing a camper, he must adhere to strictly respect the interministerial Instruction on road signs, it can not enforce regulations referring only to campers. "

In other words, the municipality can not prohibit parking for campers, because she can no longer use panels directly to the campers.

And if the mayor chose other panels stigmatizing motorhomes?
CLC: "While the CLC has the opportunity to lodge a new appeal by denouncing the fact that the common challenges of res judicata."

This decision does have consequences in other towns as La Rochelle?
CLC: "This judgment is not simply a decision against the signs used by the town of La Rochelle, it is also a decision of a more general since it confirms the importance of the decree of November 24 1967 and the RSSI. A load of another court to prove that these texts are no legislative and regulatory value. "
delawaredandy is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Motorhome Forums, Motorhome Discussion, Motorhome Chat forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome