Parking/Blocking Drive

Turkish1

Had a chat witglh a garda friend of mine in relation to someone parking across a neighbour's driveway.

In essence his take on it was, it was not illegal to park across someone's driveway obstructing it once the owner of the house can access it. So i prodded some more and his advice/take on it was that once a vehicle could get in/out regardless of how awkward, mounting curb etc needed to gain access that it was only if it was completely blocked.

Is that correct, in my completely uneducated opinion I would have expected that the owner of a property would have unimpeded access to their property. If not, what constitutes an ability to access? A smart car, or a hummer? A nervous/poor driver? Etc...

Thoughts?

Victor

I think reasonableness would apply. You can hardly demand space for a monster truck if you drive a Micra and not a monster truck.

Similarly, you would be entitled to reasonable space between vehicles - the other driver can't just allow the exact width of a Micra.

GM228

Turkish1 wrote: »

In essence his take on it was, it was not illegal to park across someone's driveway obstructing it once the owner of the house can access it. So i prodded some more and his advice/take on it was that once a vehicle could get in/out regardless of how awkward, mounting curb etc needed to gain access that it was only if it was completely blocked.

Well let's look at the legislation first:-

Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 wrote:

Prohibitions on Parking

36. (2) A vehicle shall not be parked—

(g) in any place, position or manner that will result in the vehicle obstructing an entrance or an exit for vehicles to or from a premises, save with the consent of the occupier of such premises

It is illegal to "park across someone's driveway obstructing it".

Obstruction is not defined (and I don't see a need for it to be) so the ordinary meaning applies. The ordinary meaning of the word obstruct/obstruction is to block or hinder access, by having to mount the footway or make it very awkward to access/exit the driveway is by definition obstructing the driveway.

Lmklad

GM228 wrote: »

Turkish1 wrote: »

In essence his take on it was, it was not illegal to park across someone's driveway obstructing it once the owner of the house can access it. So i prodded some more and his advice/take on it was that once a vehicle could get in/out regardless of how awkward, mounting curb etc needed to gain access that it was only if it was completely blocked.

Well let's look at the legislation first:-

Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 wrote:

Prohibitions on Parking

36. (2) A vehicle shall not be parked—

(g) in any place, position or manner that will result in the vehicle obstructing an entrance or an exit for vehicles to or from a premises, save with the consent of the occupier of such premises

It is illegal to "park across someone's driveway obstructing it".

Obstruction is not defined (and I don't see a need for it to be) so the ordinary meaning applies. The ordinary meaning of the word obstruct/obstruction is to block or hinder access, by having to mount the footway or make it very awkward to access/exit the driveway is by definition obstructing the driveway.

Correct however as there is no definition of obstruct I would think the guard is taking the safest interpretation for court purposes. It’s easy to prove obstruction if the driveway cannot be accessed at all and less easy to prove if access is possible although awkward.

ohnonotgmail

Lmklad wrote: »

Correct however as there is no definition of obstruct I would think the guard is taking the safest interpretation for court purposes. It’s easy to prove obstruction if the driveway cannot be accessed at all and less easy to prove if access is possible although awkward.

I think the guard is taking their usual "its a civil matter" approach as they dont want to get involved. If you create a difficulty in accessing a driveway you are obstructing it.

seamus

Since it is illegal in all cases to drive ones vehicle on a path or a grass verge, I think it's fair to say that requiring any vehicle to mount an undished kerb to gain access to a property, is requiring them to break the law. Therefore they are being hindered/obstructed.

"The Garda isn't stopping you from getting into your home, you just have to assault him to get him out of the way".

Turkish1

Thanks, as i suspected my buddy was wrong in this instance. Likely they just dont want to get involved in this kind of thing.

Going one step further - What would the remedy be?

Assuming (i) the garda wont really get involved, and (ii) the neighbour is not very obliging in moving the car there does not appear to be any remedy for the party impacted. E.g. I assume one would not be entitled to have the car towed? What if they had evidence (photo/video) of the obstruction and refusal of neighbour to move.

Any options?

Victor

If the Garda won't get involved, you can try the council.

Lmklad

Victor wrote: »

If the Garda won't get involved, you can try the council.

Council might ticket if there are lines but they will not tow. Simplest thing to do is when contacting Gardai to get the name of Garda and ask to speak with the Gardai arrive.

Payton

I had this before when someone was parking outside my house. I asked to speak to the traffic sergeant in my local station, his reply was if i have access and egress there is not a lot I can do. To stop the situation I parked outside my house and the issue moved onto someone else's house.

Discodog

A car parked across a gated driveway, there was a large no parking sign on the gate. The property owner was trapped in his house all day & the Guards didn't want to know.

Peregrinus

Discodog wrote: »

A car parked across a gated driveway, there was a large no parking sign on the gate. The property owner was trapped in his house all day & the Guards didn't want to know.

Well, strictly speaking the property owner's car was trapped all day. The property owner could presumably leave on foot.

Still, very annoying. And not a situation, evidently, that the guards can or will resolve.

So, what do boardies think about the idea of abating a nuisance in this situation? If someobody has abandoned their property in a public roadway where they have no right to do so, and it's causing a nuisance by blocking lawful use of the roadway (which includes using the roadway to access the adjacent properties) can you abate the nuisance by moving the property so that you can access the adjacent property? And if the person who abandoned the car has been so stupid as to lock it, well, you may have to break the window in order to release the handbrake. Do boardies think you'd have a defence to a criminal damage-type charge if you argued that you were abating a nuisance caused by the person who left the car where it was?

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, strictly speaking the property owner's car was trapped all day. The property owner could presumably leave on foot.

Still, very annoying. And not a situation, evidently, that the guards can or will resolve.

So, what do boardies think about the idea of abating a nuisance in this situation? If someobody has abandoned their property in a public roadway where they have no right to do so, and it's causing a nuisance by blocking lawful use of the roadway (which includes using the roadway to access the adjacent properties) can you abate the nuisance by moving the property so that you can access the adjacent property? And if the person who abandoned the car has been so stupid as to lock it, well, you may have to break the window in order to release the handbrake. Do boardies think you'd have a defence to a criminal damage-type charge if you argued that you were abating a nuisance caused by the person who left the car where it was?

No need to break anything. if you have 3 friends available you can easily bounce a car in any direction. In fact if you bounced it into the middle of the road the guards might be of a mind to actually do something about it.

seamus

"Abating a nuisance" isn't even really necessary. The Road Traffic Act specifically authorises you to take "steps that are reasonably necessary" to move a vehicle that's blocking ingress/egress to anywhere.

In the absence of a trolley, or four strong lads to bounce the vehicle out, I think breaking the passenger window to release the handbrake is a reasonable step.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No need to break anything. if you have 3 friends available you can easily bounce a car in any direction. In fact if you bounced it into the middle of the road the guards might be of a mind to actually do something about it.

1. What if you don't have three friends available?

2. More seriously, I think the "abating a nuisance" argument only works if you do in fact abate the nuisance. If you just move it into the middle of the road you're making the nuisance greater, not lesser. I don't think this argument flies unless there is somewhere to where you can move the car where it won't be a nuisance.

Let's say that, since the owner abandoned it across your gate, the parking space immediately in front has opened up, and you want to push it into that space. You can't bounce it forwards in a straight line and, anyway, you haven't the manpower for bouncing. You break the window, open the door, release the handbrake, push the car forward, reengage the handbrake, close the door. Where you do stand, getting-sued-wise? Or getting-prosecuted-wise?

Billgirlylegs

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, strictly speaking the property owner's car was trapped all day. The property owner could presumably leave on foot.

Still, very annoying. And not a situation, evidently, that the guards can or will resolve.

So, what do boardies think about the idea of abating a nuisance in this situation? If someobody has abandoned their property in a public roadway where they have no right to do so, and it's causing a nuisance by blocking lawful use of the roadway (which includes using the roadway to access the adjacent properties) can you abate the nuisance by moving the property so that you can access the adjacent property? And if the person who abandoned the car has been so stupid as to lock it, well, you may have to break the window in order to release the handbrake. Do boardies think you'd have a defence to a criminal damage-type charge if you argued that you were abating a nuisance caused by the person who left the car where it was?

Absolutely no (legal) way you can move an illegally parked car.
Contact the authorities and get them to deal with it.
If you move it, where are you going to put it?
If you damage it(even accidentally), you are liable for repair cost

troyzer

On Paddy's Day just gone there was a parade which started around the corner from me in my housing estate. Cars were flooded onto my road and while there was technically enough room to drive my car straight of the drive, the cars were on top of each other to the point where I couldn't turn.

I had a rant at someone who came back and they said they did nothing wrong because there was technically enough room to leave the driveway.

seamus

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Absolutely no (legal) way you can move an illegally parked car.

This is not correct, if the vehicle is blocking an entrance/exit.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/113/enacted/en/html

Section 4 in particular.

Strictly speaking, any offence only applies if you "interfere with the mechanism of a mechanically propelled vehicle".

If you can move the vehicle without actually "interfering with the mechanism", such as by sticking it on a trolley, then you may not be committing an offence.

Bagsies not being the test case though.

The J Stands for Jay

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. What if you don't have three friends available?

2. More seriously, I think the "abating a nuisance" argument only works if you do in fact abate the nuisance. If you just move it into the middle of the road you're making the nuisance greater, not lesser. I don't think this argument flies unless there is somewhere to where you can move the car where it won't be a nuisance.

Let's say that, since the owner abandoned it across your gate, the parking space immediately in front has opened up, and you want to push it into that space. You can't bounce it forwards in a straight line and, anyway, you haven't the manpower for bouncing. You break the window, open the door, release the handbrake, push the car forward, reengage the handbrake, close the door. Where you do stand, getting-sued-wise? Or getting-prosecuted-wise?

Car jack and 4 biscuit tin lids.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Our street has a problem with cars obstructing and in cases blocking driveways. It has been going on over eight years.
Gardai don't want to know. Council don't want to know. Local TDs don't want to know. Despite residents reporting each and every time we have been obstructed or blocked to the Gardai, diddly squat has been done. "Have you tried talking to the vehicle owner" is the usual response from the Gardai.

We are blocked from entering or exiting our street for hours at least one a month. When you report it to the Gardai..,"we'll send a car when one becomes available." :rolleyes:

GM228

seamus wrote: »

Strictly speaking, any offence only applies if you "interfere with the mechanism of a mechanically propelled vehicle".

If you can move the vehicle without actually "interfering with the mechanism", such as by sticking it on a trolley, then you may not be committing an offence.

Bagsies not being the test case though.

And as you already pointed out even if you do interfere with the mechanism of a vehicle you are not committing an offence if reasonably required to move the vehicle by human propulsion.

GM228

Lmklad wrote: »

Council might ticket if there are lines but they will not tow. Simplest thing to do is when contacting Gardai to get the name of Garda and ask to speak with the Gardai arrive.

Council can tow unlawfully parked vehicles.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Do boardies think you'd have a defence to a criminal damage-type charge if you argued that you were abating a nuisance caused by the person who left the car where it was?

A charge of criminal damage can be defeated if you use the defence of "lawful excuse", the question then is does S113 (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 for example simply afford an exemption to S113 (which strictly applies to the mechanicals only of a vehicle) or does it also infer a lawful excuse to for example break a window to protect a right or privilege - whilst the inners of a window may be mechanical the glass itself is not, however you could argue you had lawful excuse to break the window in order to interfere with (release) the handbrake which was reasonable under the circumstances defeating a charge under S113.

The question raised is whilst it is illegal to block ones entey/exit (and they can take reasonable steps to prevent that) is your entry/exit considered to be a right or interest over land for the purposes of the CD Act?

Turkish1

Interesting to hear other stories/opinions.

Would one be within their rights to do thw following:

A neighbour's car is blocking driveway
Park one car directly behind the offending car and one directly in front - at extremely close proximity in order to ensure that the offending car could not be moved.. sort of fighting fire with fire i suppose.

I am thinking if for example I was going away for a week and didnt need my cars - could i park as stated above once I was parked legally i.e. not blocking a driveway etc..

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

The question raised is whilst it is illegal to block ones entey/exit (and they can take reasonable steps to prevent that) is your entry/exit considered to be a right or interest over land for the purposes of the CD Act?

I think there would be a common law right to come and go from your own premises as you wish.

Forming an opening onto a public road requires planning permission. If this has been granted, and the appropriate fees for works paid and a dished kerb implemented, then that is all the permission you need. you have the right to use that opening and under the Road Traffic Acts lawful to cross any footway with a vehicle for the purposes of access or egress.

The Road Traffic Regulations make it an offence to block a vehicular entrance without the permission of the occupier.

Turkish1 wrote: »

Park one car directly behind the offending car and one directly in front - at extremely close proximity in order to ensure that the offending car could not be moved.. sort of fighting fire with fire i suppose.

I am thinking if for example I was going away for a week and didnt need my cars - could i park as stated above once I was parked legally i.e. not blocking a driveway etc..

First off, you can block your own driveway, provided it is legal to park there.

However, you risk:
* a theft offence for dishonestly depriving someone of their property;
* an obstructing the road offence;
* damage to your vehicle(s).

GM228

Victor wrote: »

I think there would be a common law right to come and go from your own premises as you wish.

There are long established common law rights in relation to property such as free use and enjoyment etc, however in relation to the Criminal Damage Act 1991 the lawful excuse must be in relation to a "right or privilege in or over land", I would take that to mean stopping others from taking possession or control for example of your property, a right as in title or control.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

There are long established common law rights in relation to property such as free use and enjoyment etc, however in relation to the Criminal Damage Act 1991 the lawful excuse must be in relation to a "right or privilege in or over land", I would take that to mean stopping others from taking possession or control for example of your property, a right as in title or control.

The right of egress is a right or privilege over land. Someone blocking your driveway is assuming some level of control over your property.

Discodog

So would blocking a driveway constitute a criminal or civil act?

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

The right of egress is a right or privilege over land. Someone blocking your driveway is assuming some level of control over your property.

Yes, but the right of ingress or egress applies to the person over their land, once the person can still access/exit their property themselves their right is not violated, you have not prevented them from accessing/exiting their property, rather you have just made it awkward to do it in one particular way, therefore you have not denied them their right, there is no right to drive.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Yes, but the right of ingress or egress applies to the person over their land, once the person can still access/exit their property themselves their right is not violated, you have not prevented them from accessing/exiting their property, rather you have just made it awkward to do it in one particular way, therefore you have not denied them their right, there is no right to drive.

Making it awkward usually makes it more difficult and likely unsafe as sight lines will be blocked. A right of egress means a right to exit easily and safely, not a right to edge out in a dangerous and illegal manner. There is a substantial interference with the owner's rights where there is even a partial obstruction.

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, strictly speaking the property owner's car was trapped all day. The property owner could presumably leave on foot.

Still, very annoying. And not a situation, evidently, that the guards can or will resolve.

So, what do boardies think about the idea of abating a nuisance in this situation? If someobody has abandoned their property in a public roadway where they have no right to do so, and it's causing a nuisance by blocking lawful use of the roadway (which includes using the roadway to access the adjacent properties) can you abate the nuisance by moving the property so that you can access the adjacent property? And if the person who abandoned the car has been so stupid as to lock it, well, you may have to break the window in order to release the handbrake. Do boardies think you'd have a defence to a criminal damage-type charge if you argued that you were abating a nuisance caused by the person who left the car where it was?

Use a tow truck winch, had to get the OH car to a garage after losing keys, Hand Brake On ( decent enough hand brake ) just pulled it onto the low loader and away to the garage.

No idea if I had of left it in gear as I sometimes do if they could do it then without a suspended tow

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

Making it awkward usually makes it more difficult and likely unsafe as sight lines will be blocked. A right of egress means a right to exit easily and safely, not a right to edge out in a dangerous and illegal manner. There is a substantial interference with the owner's rights where there is even a partial obstruction.

I think GM228's point is that if you can enter and leave your land on foot, your right of ingress and egress is not being violated. There's no established common law right to enter and leave your land in a vehicle.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think GM228's point is that if you can enter and leave your land on foot, your right of ingress and egress is not being violated. There's no established common law right to enter and leave your land in a vehicle.

And what about with your depreciating chattels?

The Road Traffic Acts and Regulations would appear to create the right.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

And what about with your depreciating chattels?

The Road Traffic Acts and Regulations would appear to create the right.

Can you point to a provision in or under the RTA that confers or recognises a right of ingress and egress with vehicles from your own property?

On edit: just a thought. If a right of ingress and egress with motor vehicles was an ordinary incident of land ownership, then the limitation of removal of that right would be a form of expropriation which, constitutionally, would require compensation. Hence if planning or similar laws prevented you from having a vehicle entrance (e.g. because you are too close to a corner) you'd be entitled to compensation for the deprivation of your property rights. Which, of course, you aren't.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can you point to a provision in or under the RTA that confers or recognises a right of ingress and egress with vehicles from your own property?

.

The fact that a driveway can only be obstructed with the consent of the owner recognises a right of egress with vehicles. It would be pointless if the obstructing of a driveway was only made out when the owner could not walk out of his driveway. The use of the term driveway rather than any entrance or exit from a property is indicative of the fact that it is intended that an owner should be able to use the driveway for its intended purpose and drive through it.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

The fact that a driveway can only be obstructed with the consent of the owner recognises a right of egress with vehicles. It would be pointless if the obstructing of a driveway was only made out when the owner could not walk out of his driveway. The use of the term driveway rather than any entrance or exit from a property is indicative of the fact that it is intended that an owner should be able to use the driveway for its intended purpose and drive through it.

RTA doesn't say anything about driveways, though. Or indeed owners.

To recap:

In general, "interfering with the mechanism of a mechanically propelled vehicle while it is stationary in a public place" is an offence: RTA 1961 s. 113(1).

Howver, by subsection (4) this doesn't apply to someone taking "reasonably necessary steps" to move a vehicle "which is obstructing his lawful ingress or egress to or from any place".

I think the word "lawful" there indicates a right of ingress/egress established by some law other than s.113(4) itself. If s. 113(4) were intended to create a statutory right that didn't already exist, the word "lawful" wouldn't be used.

More substantially, if it were intended to create a right, it would need to be a lot clearer. On whom is the right conferred, for example? People assume the owner of the property concerned, but the section doesn't mention owners. Indeed, it doesn't mention any class of persons. What kind of "place" gives rise to a right? Again, the section doesn't say.

So I don't think s.113(4) operates to create or confer a right of ingress/egress; it just gives you a defence to a s.113(1) charge if you can satisfy the court that you have a right of ingress/egress.

Still, I think the section does imply that there can be a right of ingress/egress with vehicles. The circumstances in which a right of ingress/egress on foot is frustrated by a badly-parked car are rare, but bad parking blocking vehicular access is quite common, and surely that's the mischief against which the provision is directed?

Consider this case (which actually happened to me some years ago): I rent a flat in a block of flats, the ground floor of which is a car park, in which I have a licence to park. The entrance to the car park has an automatic roller door with "No Parking" written on it. I (and all the other users of the car park) have a card with which we can open the door from either side. Some bonehead parks his car across the door.

I'd argue that that's a fairly clear case in which I have a right of ingress and egress with my vehicle, and if I interfere with the mechanism of the bonehead's vehicle so that I can move it so that it no longer blocks the entrance, s.113(4) will provide me with a good defence.

But, a further fact. Bonehead was so boneheaded as to lock his car, with the entirely forseeable consequence that anyone needing to move it would have to damage it. If I damage the car because that's reasonably necessary in order to move it and he sues me, will he win?

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Howver, by subsection (4) this doesn't apply to someone taking "reasonably necessary steps" to move a vehicle "which is obstructing his lawful ingress or egress to or from any place".

I think the word "lawful" there indicates a right of ingress/egress established by some law other than s.113(4) itself. If s. 113(4) were intended to create a statutory right that didn't already exist, the word "lawful" wouldn't be used.

My non-professional reading of that, was that "lawful" was used simply so that someone moving/damaging a vehicle for the purposes of "unlawful" ingress to a property (i.e. breaking in) could be charged with an offence.

E.g. if the property owner parked their vehicle in the entrance specifically to prevent theft.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think GM228's point is that if you can enter and leave your land on foot, your right of ingress and egress is not being violated. There's no established common law right to enter and leave your land in a vehicle.

Exactly the point I was making.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

RTA doesn't say anything about driveways, though. Or indeed owners.

?

The regulations made under it do.

g ) in any place, position or manner that will result in the vehicle obstructing an entrance or an exit for vehicles to or from a premises, save with the consent of the occupier of such premises;

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

The regulations made under it do.

g ) in any place, position or manner that will result in the vehicle obstructing an entrance or an exit for vehicles to or from a premises, save with the consent of the occupier of such premises;

Considering that the minister can only make regulations concerning the general regulation and control of traffic in public places it is hard to see how such a regulation could be considered to create a right of access or egress to private property, any question of such a "right" being created could very well be shot down as ultra vires, the provision is nothing more than a prohibition.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Considering that the minister can only make regulations concerning the general regulation and control of traffic in public places it is hard to see how such a regulation could be considered to create a right of access or egress to private property, any question of such a "right" being created could very well be shot down as ultra vires, the provision is nothing more than a prohibition.

The regulation does not create a right of access or egress, it defends a right of access or egress where one already exists. If it did not do so there would be a constitutional problem. Defending a right is not creating one.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

The regulation does not create a right of access or egress, it defends a right of access or egress where one already exists. If it did not do so there would be a constitutional problem. Defending a right is not creating one.

And we are back to where we started, what right is violated if for example you can't get your car into your driveway, but you can walk in?

There is no right of access with a vehicle, just a right of access, if your driveway is blocked for vehicular access but you can still walk in freely no right has been impinged because your right of access on foot has not been taken away from you and is as freely available as always.

You said "a right of egress with vehicles" is recognised, but where does this right come from? The right of access and egress dates back to time immemorial - some of the earliest writings on the subject I can think of is from William Blackstone in 1765 and I can't find anything to suggest the rights were modified to include vehicular access, there were certainly no vehicles back then unless there's a horse and cart right , but I can't find even a right in relation to that.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

And we are back to where we started, what right is violated if for example you can't get your car into your driveway, but you can walk in?

There is no right of access with a vehicle, just a right of access, if your driveway is blocked for vehicular access but you can still walk in freely no right has been impinged because your right of access on foot has not been taken away from you and is as freely available as always.

You said "a right of egress with vehicles" is recognised, but where does this right come from? The right of access and egress dates back to time immemorial - some of the earliest writings on the subject I can think of is from William Blackstone in 1765 and I can't find anything to suggest the rights were modified to include vehicular access, there were certainly no vehicles back then unless there's a horse and cart right , but I can't find even a right in relation to that.

A cart is a vehicle, not a horse. Access with vehicles comes from planning permission. Just because the common law did not recognise a concept in 1189 does not mean it can't have done so since. The statutory instrument governing parking recognises a right of egress with vehicles. If I get planning permission for a parking space in from of my house and an opening in my wall onto the public road are you saying I have no right of access to my house with a vehicle?

Peregrinus

Maybe we should stop thinking about the scope of rights of access that are attendant on land ownership, and starting thinking about the scope of the rights we all have in public roads.

The right of members of the public in a public roadway is classically stated as a right to pass and repass, and this undoubtedly includes passing and repassing with vehicles (carriages, carts, bicycles, motor vehicles, etc), subject to statutory regulation which may reserve part of the roadway for particular kinds of traffic, or which may close a roadway to particular kinds of traffic.

But we don't pass and repass along the road for fun; we do this mainly to get from A to B. I'd argue that using the roadway to access the property to which you going, or to exit the property that you are leaving, is an inherent aspect of the right of passage.

So, if there's a vehicular entrance on the highway, and the entrance itself is not unlawful (e.g it wasn't constructed in breach of planning laws) and it's not unlawful for you to use it (e.g. you wouldn't be trespassing by entering the adjacent property) then your right of passage on the highway, with vehicles, includes the right to enter the higway, with your vehicle, through that entrance or to leave the highway, with your vehicle, through that entrance. And if there's an obstruction in the highway which prevents you from doing that, that's a nuisance and you can abate it.

This isn't a right that belongs to the owner or occupier of the adjacent property, but to any member of the public wishing to use the highway lawfully to access the adjacent property.

beauf

GM228 wrote: »

...There is no right of access with a vehicle, just a right of access, if your driveway is blocked for vehicular access but you can still walk in freely no right has been impinged because your right of access on foot has not been taken away from you and is as freely available as always.....

That would suggest you can block someones vehicle and once they can walk freely away thats ok. Seems unlikely.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe we should stop thinking about the scope of rights of access that are attendant on land ownership, and starting thinking about the scope of the rights we all have in public roads.

The right of members of the public in a public roadway is classically stated as a right to pass and repass, and this undoubtedly includes passing and repassing with vehicles (carriages, carts, bicycles, motor vehicles, etc), subject to statutory regulation which may reserve part of the roadway for particular kinds of traffic, or which may close a roadway to particular kinds of traffic.

But we don't pass and repass along the road for fun; we do this mainly to get from A to B. I'd argue that using the roadway to access the property to which you going, or to exit the property that you are leaving, is an inherent aspect of the right of passage.

So, if there's a vehicular entrance on the highway, and the entrance itself is not unlawful (e.g it wasn't constructed in breach of planning laws) and it's not unlawful for you to use it (e.g. you wouldn't be trespassing by entering the adjacent property) then your right of passage on the highway, with vehicles, includes the right to enter the higway, with your vehicle, through that entrance or to leave the highway, with your vehicle, through that entrance. And if there's an obstruction in the highway which prevents you from doing that, that's a nuisance and you can abate it.

This isn't a right that belongs to the owner or occupier of the adjacent property, but to any member of the public wishing to use the highway lawfully to access the adjacent property.

That is not the case since the occupier can allow his entrance to be obstructed. Any randomer who wants access can be obstructed on the occupiers say so, so it is most definitely the occupiers right.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is not the case since the occupier can allow his entrance to be obstructed. Any randomer who wants access can be obstructed on the occupiers say so, so it is most definitely the occupiers right.

That's because you have no right to enter without leave of the occupier. So if the entrance is blocked with the occupier's permission, your right to use the public highway doesn't extend to using it to enter the occupier's property.

But if you have a licence (or greater right) to enter the property then, I argue, your right as a member of the public to use the highway extends to a right to use it to enter the property. And if someone stores his goods in the highway in a way that obstructs your lawful use of the highway, the goods constitute an obstruction which you have a right to abate. You don't need to invoke the rights of the landowner or occupier of the adjacent land to establish your rights here.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's because you have no right to enter without leave of the occupier. So if the entrance is blocked with the occupier's permission, your right to use the public highway doesn't extend to using it to enter the occupier's property.

But if you have a licence (or greater right) to enter the property then, I argue, your right as a member of the public to use the highway extends to a right to use it to enter the property. And if someone stores his goods in the highway in a way that obstructs your lawful use of the highway, the goods constitute an obstruction which you have a right to abate. You don't need to invoke the rights of the landowner or occupier of the adjacent land to establish your rights here.

If the occupier has allowed the obstruction you are stuck with it.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the occupier has allowed the obstruction you are stuck with it.

Not necessarily. If the occupier has allowed the obstruction then no offence is commited by whoever put it there.

But that merely gives the obstructor a defence to a criminal charge. But if I have a right to enter the property with my vehicle then his parking there creates an obstruction which constitutes a nuisance that I am entitled to abate. The fact that he would have a defence to a criminal charge is irrelevant; a nuisance doesn't have to be the result of a crime before I am entitled to abate it.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not necessarily. If the occupier has allowed the obstruction then no offence is commited by whoever put it there.

But that merely gives the obstructor a defence to a criminal charge. But if I have a right to enter the property with my vehicle then his parking there creates an obstruction which constitutes a nuisance that I am entitled to abate. The fact that he would have a defence to a criminal charge is irrelevant; a nuisance doesn't have to be the result of a crime before I am entitled to abate it.

In general, your right to access the premises would be on the basis of permission from the occupier which would be revoked if the occupier allowed the entrance to be obstructed. There may be contractual rights of entry, in which case it is most unlikely the occupier would breach his covenant or contract in allowing the blocking of the entrance.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe we should stop thinking about the scope of rights of access that are attendant on land ownership, and starting thinking about the scope of the rights we all have in public roads. 

The right of members of the public in a public roadway is classically stated as a right to pass and repass, and this undoubtedly includes passing and repassing with vehicles (carriages, carts, bicycles, motor vehicles, etc), subject to statutory regulation which may reserve part of the roadway for particular kinds of traffic, or which may close a roadway to particular kinds of traffic.

But we don't pass and repass along the road for fun; we do this mainly to get from A to B.  I'd argue that using the roadway to access the property to which you going, or to exit the property that you are leaving, is an inherent aspect of the right of passage. 

So, if there's a vehicular entrance on the highway, and the entrance itself is not unlawful (e.g it wasn't constructed in breach of planning laws) and it's not unlawful for you to use it (e.g. you wouldn't be trespassing by entering the adjacent property) then your right of passage on the highway, with vehicles, includes the right to enter the higway, with your vehicle, through that entrance or to leave the highway, with your vehicle, through that entrance.  And if there's an obstruction in the highway which prevents you from doing that, that's a nuisance and you can abate it. 

This isn't a right that belongs to the owner or occupier of the adjacent property, but to any member of the public wishing to use the highway lawfully to access the adjacent property.

Great point Peregrinus, I have been concentrating too much on property owner rights and was forgetting about the general road users rights and highway access rights which may change things somewhat.

The right to pass and repass however is subject to being peaceful, even if abatement of a nuisance is it still considered peaceful?

Also there is indeed a common law right to enter the public highway from private land (traditionally known as carriage crossings) which I already mentioned**, however I believe it is silent on the issue of vehicles themselves, there is an early UK case from 1915 or so (have to look it up but I remember reading it during studies) which added vehicles in that right following the advancement of the motor car over the previous 20 years or so, but I don't believe it was ever adopted here.

You would also imagine there is a corallary right to exit the public highway, it is not expressed in any authority I have ever found however, but I'd bet it is considered implied.

**However, further to this there is a 2016 Supreme Court case Murphy vs Attorney General & Ors [2016] IESC 27 which touches very briefly on the subject. It involved a dispute between two neighbours one of whom blocked the others entrance (with cattle rather than a vehicle) preventing them from exiting their property onto the public road and which also resulted in Gardaí involvement and criminal charges:-

Clearly, no one would be taking a writ of habeas corpus simply because they cannot get out on the public roadway for a time and that to leave their house they have to proceed through the back garden and through a neighbour’s fields. That, in essence, is the complaint made by Ann Murphy. This is not sustainable. Traditionally, the only right to the public road for a citizen is to peacefully pass and repass. The full extent of that is not for discussion here.

Opinions. But to me it seems to me that the SC has limited any access right of entrance to the public highway as long as there are other means available, and I doubt Mr. Justice Charleton wanted the neighbours to bring their vehicles through their back gardens and through their neighbours property, you have the right to pass and repass, but how you get onto the highway to exercise that right seems to afford little or no "right", the SC states pass and repass is traditionally the only right.