Bill of rights


The discussion about Coulgate Street's van problem prompted Foxberry Mike to send us this photo of a van which he says has been parked in a prominent spot next to the petrol station end of Foxberry Road for five weeks.

He says:

I noticed the same firm, AA Bill, are doing the same in Forest Hill based on this thread on SE23.com.

AA Bill seems to be the company. There's the one on Canonbie as mentioned, one on Sydenham Hill, and one outside the Livesey hall near the Savacentre.

I see it as anti-social business practice, same as the D&M Van approach to taking from the community. Others who post seem to think it is a fine part of Olde Brockley heritage!! Or part of a glorious class struggle?

Worse still - their overuse of apostrophes is presumably responsible for the missing one in Brockleys Rock.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can we team them up with any van hire companies that fail to tax their vehicles? Everyone's a winner.

Ed CPZ said...

This is illegal and the council can, should, but won't deal with it.

Manfred Mann said...

It is illegal - sadly the only time I see the council acting on such 'unauthorised street advertising' is when they put notes on cars that have small handmade advert saying 'For Sale, £xx, Contact Fred Bloggs'. Something that harms no one. Priorities eh?

Peter Falk said...

What doesn't someone call AA Bill to tell him there's an abandoned van on Foxberry Road he can scrap?

Anonymous said...

you're dead Pete

Ed CPZ said...

This was my post on the wrong thread from last night:

Forced against the wall and called a c*nt for taking a photo of the Duke's Mercedes parked on the kerb/zigzags at the roundabout. Paul Simon was good though.


Was about 11:30. It seems that the council won't do anything and you run the risk of personal injury if you get involved.

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify - what rule is this particular vehicle implied to be breaking?

Anonymous said...

Try Google Anon!

Anonymous said...

What's google meant to say? Looks like an unmarked stretch of road to me.

TM said...

I think it is an advertising and possibly planning issue not a motoring one - providing the vehicle is taxed and insured.

Anonymous said...

aka public highway and google won't say anything in the same way your broom won't sweep up for you; ffs!

Anonymous said...

It's illegal if left static; putting your name on a trade vehicle you use is of course fine.

Anonymous said...

It's only illegal if it's abandoned. If it's still taxed, insured and MOT'd then it's not abandoned.

Honestly, the mung eaters trying to make things look illegal when they're not really leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Now and Then said...

non 15.35 CITATION NEEDED. These bland assurances of illegality are getting annoying.

Anonymous said...

What if there paying someone to advertise on there car,like black cabs do.

Grammar Pedant said...

What if the're paying someone to advertise on their car,like black cabs do.

Please

Anonymous said...

"They're", surely?

Now and Then said...

Okay Ed and Manfred Mann. Let's try again. What law is being broken here? Is'nt the council acting against cars for sale by the roadside because it's unauthorised street trading which is prohibited rather than street advertising which....well, you tell me.

Now and Then said...

Anyone?

Ed CPZ said...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/783/regulation/30/made

I'll admit I have only had a brief look and this is not my area of expertise.

Also saw this http://data.gov.uk/ideas/report-illegal-parking and http://www.fixmystreet.com/

Grammar pedant said...

Just testing ;o)

Foxberry Mike said...

I think if it is illegal it is related to Planning and Advertising consents.

I just think it is ignorant and anti-social to take up valuable parking space for weeks on end for free advertising (something they seemingly repeat in at least three other locations in Forest Hill) and reinforces my view that we need a CPZ around the station

Ed CPZ said...

You're right Mike, we need CPZ to make the system as fair as possible. It will never be perfect.

The link takes you to the section (30) that establishes criminal liabilty for non-compliance.

Now and Then said...

Ed, this isn't my area of expertise either, but the statutory instrument you quote is obscure, does it actually exclude vehicles used principally for advertising in Schedule 1.? The second link I can't find, and the third is for a site which relays peoples complaints to their local councils! All in all a pretty poor trawl for such a strong assertion of illegality.

I'm not saying that it's right, just so far, not illegal.

Danja said...

Schedule 1 exemptions include:

CLASS B
An advertisement displayed on or in a vehicle normally employed as a moving vehicle.


But subject to the limiting condition that:

The vehicle is not used principally for the display of advertisements.

So if it is principally used to display adverts, it is not exempt and (if this has been brought into force etc) it looks to be caught by the provision which Ed identified.

Not a bad trawl I'd say. More than I could be bothered to do.

Ed CPZ said...

Oh do grow up; it is an offence under the town & country planning act. Google that and see if you can't make out the offence yourself.

Ed CPZ said...

It's the apostrophe that's made me angry!

Now and Then said...

Ed I'd rather you did that as you're the one who's making the case for an offence being comitted here.

To quote an anon above 'Google wont say anything in the same way my broom wont sweep for me'

I say that the S.I. seems obscure and would like to see the specific prohibition on advertising from a static vehicle rather than your section 30 which isn't, on its own, relevant

Danja I now understand the exemption from liability of a vehicle used principally for advertising, but what is that liability exactly?

qbf said...

"Oh do grow up; it is an offence under the town & country planning act."

Couldn't agree more. It's like a children's playground round here at the moment, people hurling sections of statute at each other and discussing the minutiae of parking regulations ;-)

Danja said...

Anything that falls within Schedule 1 has deemed consent, so is excluded from any liability under the regs.

But, in order to have deemed consent, the vehicle can't be used principally for advertising.

If it is, then consent is needed, if no consent is sought and granted, the offence is committed.

Now and Then said...

Thanks Danja. We'll assume consent has'nt been applied for I guess.

Legal or Illegal said...

@ Now and Then: here is another one for you.

It is illegal for a garage to repair vehicles on a public road (particularly so when the car is parked on a double yellow line and it makes circulation impossible).

This rule is broken daily by the "ghost" garage on harefield mews.

Could the Brockley Memorabilia Association explain once more why the Council does not do anything about it? They could collect £2500 a day...

Before you start to ask for proof of illegality:

"Selling and/or Repairing Motor Vehicles on the Street

Some garages and businesses place cars for sale on the street. This can cause nuisance to local residents and takes up valuable car parking spaces. The same is true with vehicles that are repaired on the street, which can also look unsightly, lead to damage of the local environment (for example when oil is spilled or leaked) and may also present a danger to passers by.

Under the provisions of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (CNEA) it is now an offence to expose or advertise for sale two or more motor vehicles parked on a road or roads within 500 metres of each other as described below. It is now also an offence to carry out ‘restricted works’ (repairs) on a motor vehicle on a road, other than in the circumstances detailed below.

Both offences carry a maximum penalty of £2500"

Just Ed said...

@Now and Then - I'm genuinely baffled by your attitude. I'm a lawyer used to reading statute and from an albeit brief view I think an offence is being comitted. Whether a court would agree is another matter but I fail to understand why you are so keen to argue otherwise and so ill prepared to do so. If someone wants to pursue then they may do so. If advising a client I would be far more careful but after all the arguing on this (and the Colugate thread where the council and VOSA need to be engaged) it is clear that the T&CPA is the relevant statute and it makes no odds if an SI is obscure. I just think you want to engage in an argument and I'm not interested. This site was at one time a place I thought it might be posible to try and resolve shared issues and improve the area (cue gentrified mung comments) but now it's the frontline in a local class war that I have no interest in and I'll be pursuing my own interests independently. Welcome to Brockley.

Anonymous said...

Foxberry Mike, send the picture to Lewisham Trading Standards...


In a normal Council they would follow the lead, in Lewisham they probably ask the owner to buy a round of drinks.

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/ContactUs/Contacts/Tradingstandards.htm

Now and Then said...

@ Just Ed I have to say that I'm as baffled by your attitude as you say you are by mine. If you refer back to the early posts on the thread you will notice genuine puzzlement as to what offence if any was committed, and so whether this advertising strategy was illegal rather than just plain regrettable.

It was not until Danja's second post on the matter that the penny dropped, for me at least.

I thought and continue to think that rigour in arguement is an important way of establishing facts.


@'Legal or Illegal' Whaaaaaaaaaat?

THNick said...

Ed - from a independent reading of this thread, I cant see that it's clear an offense has been committed. cf this guy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050948/Exposed-The-man-menace-rusty-red-vans-blighting-suburbia-ads.html

Danja said...

All that article does is point to someone who does something a bit similar. That has no bearing on whether it is or is not illegal in either case.

Brockley Central Label Cloud