This is an emergency repair now, and I am sure that a law enacted in 1847, before the advent of the combustion engine, could not be "reasonable" as classed by the lawyers and therefore cannot be enforced in 2008. 
I am sure common sense must prevail, and what makes Maria's neighboughs house sepecial? This act must still cover all / most of GB if it really hasn't been superceeded by later Acts regarding Motor propelled vehicles, and would result in no motorist being able to maintain their motor vehicle outside their own house. That is frankly abursed and totally unreasonable so surely cannot be enforced. :-/ :-/
In addition James are you sure this would still fall within Criminal Law and not Civil Law in 2008? :-/ :-/
Sorry Lizzie, but if there is an Act of Parliament that makes it a crime then it is dealt with by the criminal system. Even a stupid 1847 law like this. The police will only respond to contravention of criminal law.
If your deeds say you can't repair cars on your property (many do) then that would be dealt with by civil law. Police can be involved in civil action, but they usually only go along to keep the peace.
Common law allows people to get redress for actions that aren't covered by the above. People who claim damages for an accident negligently caused do so under common law.
Tort law is the law that would allow James to sue for damage of reputation if his neighbour said something out of order in front of a witness (slander) or wrote and published the same (libel).
Tort law is the one that our admins/mods have to be very careful with, because they can be held responsible for libel posted by any member.
Unfortunately, virtually none of it is based on common sense.
Sorry if this is patronising, but I thought an explanation would help. 
Just caught up with this thread Bandit, and yes thanks for the in-depth explanation!
The one point I would make is that deeds can stipulate vaious limitations such as no caravans being parked on the drive; no errection of roof top aerials or satelite dishes; no front garden fences etc., but once the developer has ceased to have an active interest in the property, those restrictions are frequently ignored and would, in my experience of such situations, be difficult to challenge in a civil court. (Yes, and I do know the difference between criminal and civil law)
Back to the main point;
I have been studying the Town Police Clauses Act 1847
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1847/pdf/ukpga_18470089_en.pdf, and in particular Clause XXVIII that James first referred to.
As I originally stated this particular clause relates to horses, carts and carriages, being written well before the internal combustion motor vehicle was thought of, so I still fail to see how it can be related to in a court of law in 2008 in the context of such vehicles. It may be that the law has not been rescinded / abolished, but it can be clearly argued when you read the full extract of the clause that it refers to horse driven vehicles only and can only be applied to that degree.
The Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus (2006) Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers defines "carriage" as:
1. A railway coach for passengers; 2. The manner in which a person holds and moves his head and body; 3. A four-wheeled
horse-drawn vehicle for persons
This then instinctively would be the first line of defence over any suggestion that the 1847 Act can possibly relate to a 2008 motor "vehicle", which indeed has very obviously no mention in the aforestated Act.
As a matter of interest there are many laws, such as not riding a bicycle on a pavement, or riding it at night without lights, or using an old ex-police car with exposed lights and markings still in place, which I have personally witnessed being ignored by the average police constable who has many more pressing matters (and paperwork!) to deal with on the streets in 2008 than an archaic law that dates from 1847 and relates clearly to horse drawn vehicles.
Obviously if a member of the public makes a complaint, then the Police are duty bound to investigate. However, as already stated this particular Act has no direct bearing on motor vehicles, and it is unlikely to overcoming the hurdle of the CPS, who frequently decide not to prosecute when the the legal facts are of greater clarity, due often to "not being in the public interest". With hundreds of thousands regularly working on their cars in the street, along with the clear meaning of the 1847 Act, I am sure this would be their response. 8-) 8-) British Law works in anycase on "precedent", combined with "reasonableness" and I feel sure these would also be significant factors in any decision process, especially if no prosecutions exist, even perhaps for horse-drawn carriage repair since the advent of the motor vehicle, then there would be no case to answer. 8-)
Author
Topic: The silly old git was right.I AM breaking the law! (Read 4132 times)