Monday, 2 November 2009

De Minimis Non Curat Lex?

This title comes from a response on the (old) Redbridge i Forum concerning various issues to do with Parking.
It loosely translates as "the law does not concern itself with trivia". It is actually referring to the written law as in the practice of law it is all about trivia, which is why we have rules of evidence and need so many lawyers!
The response from Parking Management is in the documents below that you can click on and print off, if you wish.

So what is this photo about, I hear you ask?

It has been brought to my attention so that you can be asked to point out where you think a Restricted Parking Area might be. It may, for instance, be Disabled Parking Bays. The suggestion is that the road markings are "de minimis".

This part of Barkingside High Street (there's a clue) was "improved" some time ago and the Contractors used this area to off-load the building materials (paving slabs, sand, ballast, cement, etc.) - thereby obliterating the road markings? Were the Contractors required to reinstate the road markings and why was this not enforced?

You may also notice a sign that appears to be the wrong way round. This is caused, allegedly, by strong winds. So why aren't they checked to be securely fixed?

It has also been suggested that once a Traffic Management Order (TMO) has been issued it cannot be suspended or rescinded. However, according to the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames (just the first one that happened to appear on Google) :

"Temporary suspension of parking bays and other parking related matters
A number of parking-related matters may be provided by the Council without the need for a traffic order. These include:

•Suspending parking bays (inside a controlled parking zone)
•Dispensations to allow a contractor to park on a yellow line
•House removal – suspending parking bay. This is applicable only in controlled parking area (marked bays). "

So, it is possible to take parking bays "out of use" if the road markings and signage need repair. So, was this done in this case?



  1. You ask a pertinent question about a lack of response. Do we know who is in charge of such little details? Is is a reasonable question for Area 3 meeting?
    I think I recognise the colour of the outdoor rails so I will have a look tomorrow to see if the parking restriction sign still think it is a weather cock.
    Now, if the proper redi site was running, we could ask direct and get an immediate response.

  2. Immediate response from Redi? That would have been a novel event!

    When it comes to the law, public highways are in a very interesting situation. Technically the land below a footway and carriageway are owned, to the midpoint of the carriageway, by the frontager. That is to say, I own the land below the footway and to the midpoint of the carriageway in front of my home, and likewise you in front of yours. I do not recall giving Redbridge Council consent to build on my land, nor do they pay me any rent for their highway on my land. Perhaps I should send them a retrospective bill to when I came here in September 1973...........

    In Dopeyf's case it's even worse: his "tenant" is that lot from Effing Forest District!!!

  3. YES - Anne, it is a very pertinent question for Area 3. The Chair is, I am informed, aware of this general situation and is doing his best to get it dealt with. However, one can always ask for an update, innit?