The ArgusTraders' cars clamped on 'private road' (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Traders' cars clamped on 'private road'

The Argus: Traders' cars clamped on 'private road' Traders' cars clamped on 'private road'

TRADERS are angry after their cars were clamped and towed away on what they believed to be a private road.

Business owners said cars on Ethel Street in Hove were clamped despite no prior warning from the DVLA or the council.

Brighton and Hove City Council has stated that this is a council road but traders said the lack of maintenance and markings on the street led them to believe it was a private road.

Jamie McCartney, owner of Brighton Body Casting, was among the disgruntled business owners who have had their car clamped.

He said: “I’ve been parking here since February but I know local businessmen who’ve been parking here for years.

“The council do not maintain the street but they want to clamp on it.

“It is the only street in the ward without parking restrictions and is always full of vehicles being worked on outside of garages.

The businesses lie on the original part of Ethel Street, but the road has now fallen into disrepair and is not marked by any lines. Many of the businesses on Ethel Street are car maintenance garages.

Mr McCartney said cars were towed away the day after they were clamped.

He said despite complaints about the drainage of the road and flooding the council is not maintaining the part of Ethel Street where cars were clamped.

He said: “Maybe they are only towing the cars away from people who didn’t complain.”

Another Ethel Street business man said two out of six cars that were clamped have now been towed away and one of the fines has been paid.

A spokesperson from the DVLA confirmed that they had permission to clamp cars on Ethel Street.

But the DVLA has now confirmed that all action on Ethel Street will be suspended until the situation is resolved.

Andrew Wealls, councillor for Central Hove, went to Ethel Street to see the situation for himself and said something needs to be done. He said: “I think everyone has done everything right, it’s now up to the council to change its records and correct the map because it shows deficiencies.

“I would like to thank the contractors for the DVLA for giving us some breathing space to get this sorted out and the local businesses for their patience.”

A council spokesperson for Brighton and Hove Council, said: “The matter is being looked into by council lawyers and we hope to have a clearer picture soon.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:22am Thu 5 Jun 14

Sir Prised says...

You should have just said you were Travellers. The police would have protected you!
You should have just said you were Travellers. The police would have protected you! Sir Prised
  • Score: 68

8:32am Thu 5 Jun 14

cleggandbacon says...

Just goes to prove there are laws for some but not others. In the future same treatment MUST be handed out to ALL illegal parking on council land be it on roads or green open spaces.
Just goes to prove there are laws for some but not others. In the future same treatment MUST be handed out to ALL illegal parking on council land be it on roads or green open spaces. cleggandbacon
  • Score: 50

8:43am Thu 5 Jun 14

qm says...

I have lived in the area for 30 years and been associated with it for many more and I have never seen anything so ridiculous. The area shown in the photo above is NOT Ethel street but an access lane that runs parallel to it giving access to the lockups etc. at the rear of Goldstone Villas and is separated from Ethel Street by a parking zone!
There are far too many Council employees without a proper job to do who in their boredom go to extraordinary lengths to antagonise the community!
What is the point of having elected Councillors if they are unable to impose some restraint on the rank stupidity of bored idiots?
I have lived in the area for 30 years and been associated with it for many more and I have never seen anything so ridiculous. The area shown in the photo above is NOT Ethel street but an access lane that runs parallel to it giving access to the lockups etc. at the rear of Goldstone Villas and is separated from Ethel Street by a parking zone! There are far too many Council employees without a proper job to do who in their boredom go to extraordinary lengths to antagonise the community! What is the point of having elected Councillors if they are unable to impose some restraint on the rank stupidity of bored idiots? qm
  • Score: 58

9:04am Thu 5 Jun 14

Watchdog50 says...

Sir Prised wrote:
You should have just said you were Travellers. The police would have protected you!
Once again, a story nothing to do with the police yet they end up being criticized! Sir Prised, you and those who have given you the 'thumbs up' ought to spend a little less time reading the Argus and a little more time reading up on the law and current legislation. Perhaps you'd then understand that in matters of civil trespass (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to in your dig as I'm not aware of any other situation where police are perceived to "protect" travellers over any other section of the community), the police have absolutely no powers unless a court order is in force.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: You should have just said you were Travellers. The police would have protected you![/p][/quote]Once again, a story nothing to do with the police yet they end up being criticized! Sir Prised, you and those who have given you the 'thumbs up' ought to spend a little less time reading the Argus and a little more time reading up on the law and current legislation. Perhaps you'd then understand that in matters of civil trespass (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to in your dig as I'm not aware of any other situation where police are perceived to "protect" travellers over any other section of the community), the police have absolutely no powers unless a court order is in force. Watchdog50
  • Score: -27

9:07am Thu 5 Jun 14

MikeTheKnight says...

There is a lovely spot outside my flat where they can park. 1 mile of flat open space where they wont be disturbed. Until the tide comes in.
There is a lovely spot outside my flat where they can park. 1 mile of flat open space where they wont be disturbed. Until the tide comes in. MikeTheKnight
  • Score: 2

9:12am Thu 5 Jun 14

clubrob6 says...

MikeTheKnight wrote:
There is a lovely spot outside my flat where they can park. 1 mile of flat open space where they wont be disturbed. Until the tide comes in.
Do you mean the travellers or traders? :)
[quote][p][bold]MikeTheKnight[/bold] wrote: There is a lovely spot outside my flat where they can park. 1 mile of flat open space where they wont be disturbed. Until the tide comes in.[/p][/quote]Do you mean the travellers or traders? :) clubrob6
  • Score: 33

9:21am Thu 5 Jun 14

MikeTheKnight says...

clubrob6 wrote:
MikeTheKnight wrote:
There is a lovely spot outside my flat where they can park. 1 mile of flat open space where they wont be disturbed. Until the tide comes in.
Do you mean the travellers or traders? :)
Helps if I posted it on the correct story! The travellers
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MikeTheKnight[/bold] wrote: There is a lovely spot outside my flat where they can park. 1 mile of flat open space where they wont be disturbed. Until the tide comes in.[/p][/quote]Do you mean the travellers or traders? :)[/p][/quote]Helps if I posted it on the correct story! The travellers MikeTheKnight
  • Score: 13

9:39am Thu 5 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

Watchdog50 wrote:
Sir Prised wrote:
You should have just said you were Travellers. The police would have protected you!
Once again, a story nothing to do with the police yet they end up being criticized! Sir Prised, you and those who have given you the 'thumbs up' ought to spend a little less time reading the Argus and a little more time reading up on the law and current legislation. Perhaps you'd then understand that in matters of civil trespass (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to in your dig as I'm not aware of any other situation where police are perceived to "protect" travellers over any other section of the community), the police have absolutely no powers unless a court order is in force.
Incorrect. Police can use powers under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which do not require the involvement of the courts.
[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: You should have just said you were Travellers. The police would have protected you![/p][/quote]Once again, a story nothing to do with the police yet they end up being criticized! Sir Prised, you and those who have given you the 'thumbs up' ought to spend a little less time reading the Argus and a little more time reading up on the law and current legislation. Perhaps you'd then understand that in matters of civil trespass (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to in your dig as I'm not aware of any other situation where police are perceived to "protect" travellers over any other section of the community), the police have absolutely no powers unless a court order is in force.[/p][/quote]Incorrect. Police can use powers under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which do not require the involvement of the courts. Quiterie
  • Score: 27

9:46am Thu 5 Jun 14

Goldenwight says...

Sorry, but the traders thought they were parked on private land? Had they sought permission from whoever they thought the landowner was then? If not, they can hardly complain when the Landlord takes offence. Or is the point of the story that they believed THEY owned the road? If so, then why did they approach the Council about drainage and repairs? Did they expect the Public to stump up repairs for their property?
Sorry, but the traders thought they were parked on private land? Had they sought permission from whoever they thought the landowner was then? If not, they can hardly complain when the Landlord takes offence. Or is the point of the story that they believed THEY owned the road? If so, then why did they approach the Council about drainage and repairs? Did they expect the Public to stump up repairs for their property? Goldenwight
  • Score: -12

10:41am Thu 5 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

Why is this council so full of Bull SH*T
Why is this council so full of Bull SH*T wippasnapper
  • Score: 18

11:31am Thu 5 Jun 14

NickBrt says...

How come Lucas hadn't sat in the road to stop this? Oh silly me. She doesn't care about decent working people.
How come Lucas hadn't sat in the road to stop this? Oh silly me. She doesn't care about decent working people. NickBrt
  • Score: 21

12:49pm Thu 5 Jun 14

straightasadye says...

SHHHH - mustn't mention travellers Sir Prised - you will get the thread closed down.
SHHHH - mustn't mention travellers Sir Prised - you will get the thread closed down. straightasadye
  • Score: 20

2:31pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Martha Gunn says...

If they thought it was private land why did they trespass on it?
If they thought it was private land why did they trespass on it? Martha Gunn
  • Score: -4

5:17pm Thu 5 Jun 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Goldenwight wrote:
Sorry, but the traders thought they were parked on private land? Had they sought permission from whoever they thought the landowner was then? If not, they can hardly complain when the Landlord takes offence. Or is the point of the story that they believed THEY owned the road? If so, then why did they approach the Council about drainage and repairs? Did they expect the Public to stump up repairs for their property?
I've always found the Land Registry maps informative when dealing with such issues, and the items of most interest when looking to buy such places. I always check out the detail even when I've come to the conclusion that I don't want to buy it. Isn't this a bit like those flats that were always aware that they were never entitled to parking permits (because this was written into the deeds), but cried foul when they'd been getting away with buying permits for years, before someone at the Council noticed? This is how the issue is presented by The Argus. However, I don't feel that this is correct. I think that while this road is probably private land, and the garage owners are probably expected to keep it clear as a 'right of way' for each others' access (according to their deeds), this is not the same as a 'Public Right of Way' that you'd see on a Landranger Ordnance Survey Map. But for the purposes of DVLA enforcement (as practised by NSL Ltd), this detail is immaterial nowadays. I do believe that the law was changed in this regard quite a long time ago now, so that DVLA enforcement can go onto such 'public access' private land to deal with vehicles that they feel are probably being driven on public roads. Given that this change was made quite a few years ago now, I'm surprised it's taken NSL staff so long to notice Ethel Street in this regard. Long winded I know, but I think this is the gist of it.
[quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: Sorry, but the traders thought they were parked on private land? Had they sought permission from whoever they thought the landowner was then? If not, they can hardly complain when the Landlord takes offence. Or is the point of the story that they believed THEY owned the road? If so, then why did they approach the Council about drainage and repairs? Did they expect the Public to stump up repairs for their property?[/p][/quote]I've always found the Land Registry maps informative when dealing with such issues, and the items of most interest when looking to buy such places. I always check out the detail even when I've come to the conclusion that I don't want to buy it. Isn't this a bit like those flats that were always aware that they were never entitled to parking permits (because this was written into the deeds), but cried foul when they'd been getting away with buying permits for years, before someone at the Council noticed? This is how the issue is presented by The Argus. However, I don't feel that this is correct. I think that while this road is probably private land, and the garage owners are probably expected to keep it clear as a 'right of way' for each others' access (according to their deeds), this is not the same as a 'Public Right of Way' that you'd see on a Landranger Ordnance Survey Map. But for the purposes of DVLA enforcement (as practised by NSL Ltd), this detail is immaterial nowadays. I do believe that the law was changed in this regard quite a long time ago now, so that DVLA enforcement can go onto such 'public access' private land to deal with vehicles that they feel are probably being driven on public roads. Given that this change was made quite a few years ago now, I'm surprised it's taken NSL staff so long to notice Ethel Street in this regard. Long winded I know, but I think this is the gist of it. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 3

7:21pm Thu 5 Jun 14

hoveguyactually says...

Who is Ethel Street?
Who is Ethel Street? hoveguyactually
  • Score: 1

8:15pm Thu 5 Jun 14

missPgreen says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
Who is Ethel Street?
Wheel clamper working for the council.
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Who is Ethel Street?[/p][/quote]Wheel clamper working for the council. missPgreen
  • Score: 4

9:00pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Sir Prised says...

Watchdog50 wrote:
Sir Prised wrote:
You should have just said you were Travellers. The police would have protected you!
Once again, a story nothing to do with the police yet they end up being criticized! Sir Prised, you and those who have given you the 'thumbs up' ought to spend a little less time reading the Argus and a little more time reading up on the law and current legislation. Perhaps you'd then understand that in matters of civil trespass (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to in your dig as I'm not aware of any other situation where police are perceived to "protect" travellers over any other section of the community), the police have absolutely no powers unless a court order is in force.
Go and park your car in the middle of Prestom Park then and see how long it is before you're moved on!
[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: You should have just said you were Travellers. The police would have protected you![/p][/quote]Once again, a story nothing to do with the police yet they end up being criticized! Sir Prised, you and those who have given you the 'thumbs up' ought to spend a little less time reading the Argus and a little more time reading up on the law and current legislation. Perhaps you'd then understand that in matters of civil trespass (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to in your dig as I'm not aware of any other situation where police are perceived to "protect" travellers over any other section of the community), the police have absolutely no powers unless a court order is in force.[/p][/quote]Go and park your car in the middle of Prestom Park then and see how long it is before you're moved on! Sir Prised
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree