Does Council removal of a vehicle constitute Trespass to Chattel? Recently recieved a notice stuck on my car windscreen, Which is a removal Notice giving 7 days to remove the vehichle. or Until the 16th of November. I live in Norwich in the Uk &amp; the local council is Norwich City Council. preceps: The car is not parked on a road, nor on a highway per-say: Google earth image included for referance: The notice cites the following acts: Refuse Disposal (amenity Act 1978) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 First Act that they mentioned being the Refuse Act, A Car is not Refuse, Rubbish, Fly-Tipping &amp; Dog Doo Are Refuse, if anything it is a Re-cycleable &amp; will be melted down &amp; made into a Smart Toaster or someones fridge freezer.. First Paragraphs of the letter states: In pursuance of their powers of the above named Authority HEREBY GIVE NOTICE that they are of the opinion that this vehicle is in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed and that UNLESS THE VEHICLE IS REMOVED WITHIN 7 DAYS from the date hereof they will, in pursuance of the above acts, remove the vehicle and arrange for its retention until the current licence expires and its subsequent destruction The car is not in a state of disrepair, it is not damaged, not wrecked, has not been abandoned &amp; is not burnt out. I have declared the car as SORN and un-taxed the car until I could save up the money to get items repaired on it that are quite expensive. There are no parking restrictions in my area, we do not have wardens, it is not parked on a single or a double line. Nor is it in my opinion parked on a road or a highway. It is not obstructing anyone access to their property, it is not block or obstructing any pathways or entrances, sheds, garages or any other propetys. it is the local The Area Management Team, Which is part of or under the control of the local Environment Agency which has issued this notice. My Question is, if they try to remove my vehichle without my consent, Does that constitute Treepass to Chatells or Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 &amp; if it doesn't what other grounds can you use for Appeal? They have marked at the bottom of the letter that it Appears to be a Non-Runner, but they cannot possibly tell that without opening the doors, putting the key in the ignition and trying to turn the motor over... It is a running car, which still works, it just needs a new clutch and a few other things fixed. It does not have any flat tyres, nor does it have any outside cosmetic damage for them to state its in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed Partially Related Questions i can find: is a Carpark a road? Managing Vehicles on Council Estates Know Your Parking Rights Nuisance Parking to Become illegal Council responsibility for abandoned vehicles on public roads Criteria of an Abandoned Vehicle - Coventry Also as a side note the Notice is Addressed to The Owner of the Vehichle By DVLA's own documentation. I am the registered keeper Not the Actual owner.. I'm not very good at reading through legislation documentation, its purposefully obscure &amp; non-sensical with all the different amendmants, side notes, double-speak, redactions and implications.. Is this notice Written as a contract? And an opinion as they have worded it is Subjective and not based on Law. Can someone with a better understanding of #uklaw please give me some advice or add some constructive comments or an informative Answer.. I Would fully understand if the car was a wreck, if it was blocking someones access, if it had three wheels missing and no windshield, Or if it was burnt out. But it is none of the above. Plus technically speaking one of those parking spaces is designated for my flat, There is plenty enough parking for every other resident withing this neighbourhood. Two Carparks Both either side and multiple small spots, aswell as on-road parking on all other sides of the flats. This Document is from a different Council or Burrough but is usefull information to Know: FixMyStreet Article the road and west side footway are adopted but the parking spaces are not. In that case, the parking spaces will be private land, owned by the housing &gt; department and used under the terms of the leases and tenancy agreements. In that case, the council as parking enforcer couldn't do anything about SORNed vehicles (which would not be illegal) or untaxed and unSORNed ones, &gt; which would be illegal but not removable. As landowner, it could take action under the law of trespass, or as a breach of the tenancy agreement or lease. Most modern social housing leases &gt; have rules banning SORNed vehicles Norwich City Council Abandoned Vehicles Norwich City Council Abandoned Cars RSS Feed Norwich list Legal Definition of a Close 1 private property, usually enclosed by a fence, hedge, or wall. 2 a courtyard or quadrangle enclosed by buildings or an entry leading to such a courtyard. 3 the entry from the street to a tenement building. Legal Definition of a Cul-De-Sac For other peoples reference. Thanks in advance for anybodys inputs.
If they have no legal grounds then it would be trespass to chattels However, they do have legal grounds. Following the procedure laid out in the relevant Act makes the car refuse under the Act notwithstanding your opinion. Move it or lose it. Or seek an injunction preventing the council removing the vehicle- this will likely fail.
To answer the question in your title: Yes, local authorities require planning permission. However, the question in your question is different. Removing a bus shelter or a lay-by probably wouldn't require planning permission if it was done by Tesco's in their car park - so the local authority doesn't require it either. There may be a requirement for consultation on such changes, but when Douglas Adams referred to It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'. he was only half joking. Finally, it is worth pointing out that the bus shelter and lay-by are "roads", so if you don't live in a unitary authority would be handled by the County Council (or equivalent), whereas Planning is the responsibility of the District/Town/City Council.
england-and-wales The OP's linked question seems to cover the placement of cones on the road. The relevant legislation (from which some of the Highway Code derives its rules) and potential offences for the parking described are: Wilful obstruction, contrary to section 137, Highways Act 1980: (1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.(i.e. £1,000) And Leaving vehicles in dangerous positions contrary to section 22, Road Traffic Act 1988: If a person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or a trailer drawn by it to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to involve a danger of injury to other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence. (also £1,000 maximum fine)
Residents agree that the receipt of mail by any individual not listed as a Resident or Occupant in this Agreement at the Leased Premises shall be proof of occupancy of that individual and a violation of this Agreement. I assume that the lease states that only the listed individuals can reside in the unit. Maybe they think that this says that receipt of mail by an unlisted person is a further violation of the lease, I don't think that is clearly enough stated that the courts would agree that receiving mail is itself a violation of the lease. Instead, it seems to be intended to say something about an existing clause – you can't have other people living there. The courts would look at the requirements of the lease, and ask "did you comply"? The question of whether you did a certain thing is a question of fact that has to be resolved in court. However, the revised lease language does not state that all mail must be addressed to Johnny Johnson – it only addresses receipt by a person not on the lease. You are (apparently) on the lease, so you may receive mail there. Nothing in the lease controls how such mail can be addressed. If you receive mail addressed to Tommy Thompson, your defense is that you received the mail, and you are on the lease, so you will not have violated the new clause.
The fire department is entirely within its rights, which are the same as any other property owner. The fact that property is owned by a governmental body does not mean that members of the public can't be excluded that property. Some governmental property is public, but lots of it is private, and this would usually include most parts of fire department property. As long as you have not been denied any access to a public road by this fence, there is nothing improper about it. Anyone can walk through their parking lot, park their car there, meet friends, whatever, This is almost surely inaccurate. The fire department does not have to allow members of the public to have any access to their property and probably would demand that most of the uses you describe stop if they interfered in any way with the performance of its duties.
In general, people have less expectation of privacy in cars than in their homes. To challenge a search and/or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a person must have standing - the right to sue (that is, you must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place where the search happened; if you didn't, no standing - can't claim your privacy was violated if you had no privacy). The US Circuit Courts are split on the issue of unauthorized rental drivers and whether they have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as the authorized driver of a rental car would have. Some Circuits allow the unauthorized driver to challenge a car search if the authorized driver gave them permission. Some Circuits look only at the agreement and if the driver isn't authorized on that, they're out of luck. The 6th Circuit is more case-by-case, with a presumption that driver can't challenge the search that can be overcome based on the facts. (All this info from US v. Haywood, 324 F.3d 514) There's a current case before the Supreme Court (argued January 9, 2018), Byrd v. US, on this very issue. This SCOTUSblog page has a lot of information on the case. Edited to add: Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, which follows the rule that unauthorized drivers don't have standing to challenge a search/seizure even with the authorized driver's permission to drive the car; unauthorized drivers of rental cars don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they lack a possessory interest in the car and/or they're violating the rental agreement. Basically, even though it seems the cops' stop of the car would've violated the Fourth Amendment if he were the authorized driver, since this happened in Texas, he's not going to be able to challenge the stop. IMO, this is incredibly unjust especially when the cops admitted there was no probable cause, so hopefully the Supreme Court makes this rule obsolete and allows unauthorized drivers to exercise their Fourth Amendment rights. Some law review articles on the topic of unauthorized rental drivers: "Hertz and the Fourth Amendment" "Resolving a Three-Way Circuit Split"
I'll assume a real question here and not one about a fan film on YouTube. Take the trash from a trash deposit container outside my neighbor's house, without asking permission? All depends on the locality; and sometimes the law is not settled, either. Some cities have passed laws that deem trash to be city's property as soon as it is placed in a city-supplied trash bin, because the city (or a private contractor) hauls to and owns the landfill. Other cities claim legal ownership of recyclables when placed on the curb, for the obvious reason that they are worth money. The law can be not settled if objects are in alleys and not in trash bins, or simply placed on the curb. For the sake of discussion, there are numerous examples of cities looking the other way with scavengers and pickers; it all depends on the location and the enforcement. (And, there are examples of the police being able to legally pull evidence from trash; but that's not the question here.) Go to the landfill, load some trash into my truck, then drive away? Think about it: you're obviously not going to be able to do this in a location with a managed landfill with employees that check you in and take your tipping fee. If it's a private trash contractor, it's private property; for a city, it's probably against the contract you signed when you paid to dump and probably against city law to salvage from the landfill, for liability reasons. (That doesn't mean the employees at the landfill can't salvage themselves; that's up to them.) But like anything, at an unmanaged landfill in a rural area, you could probably get away with it.
The landlord may be confused about what is legal. Growing pot without a license (they do not have one: it cannot be grown at home, and certainly not if there is a minor present) is not legal, not even in Seattle (medical marijuana now requires a general marijuana license, and home-grown is not legal – some Dept. of Health pages don't reflect the new law). Under RCW 59.18.065, the landlord must provide a copy of the executed agreement to each tenant, and a replacement copy on request. Under RCW 59.18.150, the landlord may enter the unit in case of an emergency, and otherwise shall give the tenant at least two days' written notice of his or her intent to enter and shall enter only at reasonable times. The notice must state the exact time and date or dates of entry or specify a period of time during that date or dates in which the entry will occur, in which case the notice must specify the earliest and latest possible times of entry. The notice must also specify the telephone number to which the tenant may communicate any objection or request to reschedule the entry. The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter the dwelling unit at a specified time where the landlord has given at least one day's notice of intent to enter to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers or tenants A lease cannot be terminated without cause and a legal process (eviction hearing), rather, it runs out at a specific time (the end of July). The situation with dog-washing is unclear, since normally a landlord can't decide to use a person's apartment for a dog-washing operation (the common law right to quiet enjoyment). If there is such a clause in the lease then that would be allowed, but they can't now decide that they have this right (the terms of a lease can't be changed in the middle). They can restrict the cats from areas outside your unit. You may however have some (legal) misunderstanding about what exactly "your unit" is, specifically, is the dog wash part of a "common area" that isn't actually part of what you have an exclusive right to.