UK motoring law is often understood through the Road Traffic Act and the Highway Code, but a significant part of everyday driving legality is governed by the Highways Act 1980. This legislation regulates how highways are used, protected and kept clear, and it creates criminal offences that apply directly to private motorists, drivers, riders and other road users.
Unlike many driving offences that arise only while a vehicle is moving, the Highways Act frequently applies when a vehicle is stationary, parked, loading or left unattended. Drivers regularly breach it without realising, particularly in relation to obstruction, parking on pavements or verges, and activities that interfere with the public’s right to pass and repass.
The Act is enforced by local authorities and, in some circumstances, the police. Breaches can lead to prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court, fines and, in certain cases, wider consequences affecting insurance liability and civil claims. While many Highways Act offences do not carry penalty points, they are criminal offences and should not be treated as minor or informal matters.
What this article is about
This article explains how the Highways Act 1980 applies to private motorists and individual road users in real-world driving and parking situations. It focuses on legal duties, enforcement powers and the consequences of non-compliance, linking the legislation to how police, councils, courts and insurers apply the law in practice. The aim is to help drivers make legally defensible decisions that protect their licence status, financial position and long-term driving record.
Section A: What is the Highways Act 1980 and why does it matter to drivers?
The Highways Act 1980 is a foundational piece of UK legislation governing the creation, maintenance and protection of highways. While much of the Act deals with the responsibilities of highway authorities, it also imposes direct legal duties on members of the public, including drivers and vehicle owners.
For motorists, the importance of the Act lies in the fact that it criminalises certain conduct that interferes with the public’s right to use the highway. This includes actions that obstruct the highway, damage it, or place objects on it without lawful authority. Crucially, these duties apply regardless of whether a vehicle is being driven at the time. Parking decisions, loading activity and even temporary stops can fall within its scope.
Many drivers assume that if an issue is not explicitly covered by the Highway Code or does not result in penalty points, it is of limited legal significance. That assumption is incorrect. Highways Act offences are criminal offences, enforced independently of road traffic offences, and they do not require proof of dangerous driving or poor driving standards. In many cases, the offence is complete simply because the obstruction or interference exists.
The Act also matters because it operates alongside, rather than instead of, other motoring laws. A single incident can engage multiple legal frameworks at once. For example, a vehicle parked partly on a pavement may breach the Highways Act by obstructing the highway, breach local traffic regulation orders enforced under civil parking regimes, and create civil liability if a pedestrian is injured while passing.
From a compliance perspective, the Highways Act is particularly significant because enforcement does not depend on malicious intent. Some offences under the Act operate on a strict liability basis, while others, such as obstruction of the highway, require the obstruction to be wilful. In practice, courts interpret wilfulness broadly. It is usually enough that the driver deliberately parked or left the vehicle in that position, not that they intended to cause an obstruction.
Drivers are often exposed to enforcement risk under this Act without any warning signs or markings on the road. Unlike double yellow lines or controlled parking zones, the absence of visible restrictions does not mean the Highways Act does not apply. This is why misunderstandings around pavements, verges and apparently quiet roads frequently lead to enforcement action.
Section A summary
The Highways Act 1980 matters to drivers because it creates criminal offences arising from everyday parking and stopping decisions, often without obvious warning. It applies independently of the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act, does not rely on poor driving standards, and can expose motorists to prosecution, fines and wider legal consequences even when a vehicle is stationary.
Section B: What counts as a “highway” under the Highways Act?
Whether the Highways Act 1980 applies to a particular driving or parking situation depends first on whether the location in question is legally classed as a “highway”. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Act and a common source of enforcement shock for motorists.
In everyday language, drivers tend to equate a highway with a public road maintained by the council. In law, the concept is much broader. A highway is any way over which the public has a right to pass and repass, as of right, without hindrance. This right can exist regardless of who owns the land or who is responsible for maintaining it.
For drivers, this means that the Highways Act can apply to places that do not look or feel like conventional roads. Footways, pavements, verges, lay-bys, bridleways and certain tracks can all be highways for legal purposes. The decisive factor is not appearance, signage or surface quality, but whether the public has an established legal right of access.
A common point of confusion arises around adopted and unadopted roads. An adopted road is one that the local highway authority maintains at public expense. An unadopted road is typically privately owned and maintained. However, an unadopted road can still be a highway if the public has a right of way over it. Drivers who assume that parking on an unadopted or poorly maintained road removes legal risk are often mistaken.
Pavements and footways are also frequently misunderstood. In law, a footway is part of the highway set aside primarily for pedestrian use. It remains part of the highway even though vehicles are not generally permitted to drive on it. Parking on a pavement or partially blocking it can therefore engage the Highways Act, even if there are no yellow lines or specific parking restrictions in place.
Grass verges present similar risks. A verge forming part of the highway is protected in law, even where it is not clearly marked or physically separated from private land. Driving onto or parking on a verge can amount to obstruction of the highway or damage to it, depending on the circumstances and the effect on public use.
The Act can also apply to areas that appear to be private land but are accessible to the public as of right. This may include estate roads, access roads or routes where long-standing public use has resulted in highway rights arising through dedication or long use. In such cases, enforcement action can come as a surprise to drivers who believed they were parking on private ground.
For compliance purposes, motorists should assume that any area open to public passage may qualify as a highway unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The legal test focuses on public rights of passage, not on driver belief, convenience or informal local practice.
Section B summary
A “highway” under the Highways Act 1980 is any place where the public has a legal right to pass and repass, not just adopted roads. Pavements, verges, footways, unadopted roads and some areas that appear private can all fall within the Act, exposing drivers to enforcement risk based purely on location.
Section C: What offences can drivers commit under the Highways Act 1980?
The Highways Act 1980 creates several criminal offences that apply directly to drivers and vehicle owners. These offences are frequently committed unintentionally, not because of reckless driving, but because motorists misunderstand how ordinary parking, loading or stopping decisions interact with the law.
One of the most commonly enforced offences is obstruction of the highway. A person commits an offence if they wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway. For drivers, this most often arises where a vehicle is parked in a position that blocks or restricts the ability of pedestrians, cyclists or other vehicles to pass.
In this context, wilfulness does not require an intention to cause obstruction. Courts interpret wilfulness broadly. It is usually sufficient that the driver deliberately parked or left the vehicle where it was, knowing its position. A mistaken belief that the parking was acceptable, convenient or locally tolerated does not prevent liability.
Obstruction does not need to be total. Partial obstruction can be enough if it unreasonably interferes with the public’s right to pass and repass. For example, forcing pedestrians into the carriageway, narrowing access for wheelchairs or pushchairs, or significantly restricting visibility or movement may all amount to obstruction even where some passage remains possible.
Vehicles parked on pavements, footways or verges are frequent targets for enforcement. Even where other vehicles are parked in the same way, or where the practice has become commonplace, the legal position does not change. The offence turns on whether the obstruction is unreasonable in the circumstances, not on how common the behaviour is.
The Act also creates offences relating to depositing objects on the highway. For motorists, this can include leaving trailers, vehicle parts or other items associated with a vehicle on the highway without lawful authority. In some circumstances, the vehicle itself may be treated as the object deposited on the highway.
Damage to the highway is separately criminalised. Driving onto or parking on grass verges, footways or soft highway edges in a way that causes actual damage can give rise to liability. This typically requires evidence of harm, such as rutting, surface breakage or deterioration. The offence does not require malicious intent, but there must be demonstrable damage rather than mere risk of damage.
A critical point for drivers is that many Highways Act offences can be committed even when the vehicle is unattended. Leaving a vehicle parked in an obstructive or damaging position is sufficient. There is no requirement for the driver to be present, warned or asked to move the vehicle before enforcement action is taken.
Section C summary
The Highways Act 1980 criminalises everyday driver behaviour such as obstructive parking, pavement or verge parking and causing damage to the highway. These offences often arise unintentionally, do not depend on poor driving standards, and can be committed simply by leaving a vehicle in an unreasonable or damaging position.
Section D: Can drivers be prosecuted under the Highways Act?
Drivers can be prosecuted under the Highways Act 1980, and enforcement is more common than many motorists realise. Unlike most moving traffic offences, enforcement does not depend on driving standards, speed or behaviour behind the wheel. It is based on the condition created on the highway and the legal duties owed to the public.
Enforcement responsibility under the Act is shared. Local authorities are the primary enforcers in most cases, particularly where obstruction, damage or unauthorised use of the highway is involved. The police also retain enforcement powers and may become involved where an obstruction creates safety risks or escalates into wider road traffic or public order concerns.
Some Highways Act offences may be dealt with through fixed penalties where local enforcement schemes permit this. However, fixed penalty availability is offence-specific and authority-specific, and many Highways Act cases proceed directly to prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court, particularly where obstruction is persistent, serious or ignored after warning.
Prosecution does not require proof that an accident, injury or actual harm occurred. The focus is on whether the offence was made out on the facts. In obstruction cases, the court considers whether the driver wilfully obstructed the highway, applying the broad interpretation of wilfulness established in case law.
There are limited defences available, but they are fact-sensitive. A driver may argue that the obstruction was reasonable, necessary or unavoidable in the circumstances. For example, a brief stop caused by a genuine emergency may be treated differently from routine parking. However, convenience, lack of alternative parking or reliance on local practice will rarely amount to a valid defence.
Highways Act offences are summary offences. Proceedings must generally be commenced within six months of the date of the alleged offence. Evidence may include photographs, officer statements, measurements, witness accounts and records demonstrating how passage was impeded or damage occurred.
Conviction can result in a fine and, where appropriate, an order requiring removal of the obstruction or repair of damage. Although many offences do not attract penalty points, the criminal conviction and financial penalty can still carry long-term consequences, particularly where enforcement action is repeated.
Section D summary
Drivers can and do face prosecution under the Highways Act 1980. Enforcement focuses on the condition created on the highway rather than driver intent, and offences can lead to fines and criminal liability even where no accident or injury has occurred.
Section E: Does the Highways Act affect penalty points or driving licences?
A key reason drivers underestimate the Highways Act 1980 is that many offences under the Act do not carry penalty points. This often leads to the mistaken belief that breaches are administrative or low-impact. In legal terms, that assumption is incorrect.
Most offences under the Highways Act are non-endorseable, meaning they do not result in penalty points being added to a driving licence and do not, by themselves, trigger disqualification under the totting-up system. However, they remain criminal offences, and a conviction is formally recorded by the court.
The absence of penalty points does not limit the court’s powers. Fines may be imposed, particularly where obstruction is serious, prolonged or repeated. Courts may also take account of prior enforcement history where a driver has demonstrated ongoing non-compliance with highway obligations.
The licence impact becomes more significant where Highways Act offences arise alongside other motoring offences. A single incident may engage multiple legal regimes. For example, a vehicle parked in a dangerous or obstructive position may give rise to a Highways Act obstruction offence alongside a Road Traffic Act offence. In such cases, penalty points or disqualification risk may arise through the related offence rather than the Highways Act breach itself.
Highways Act convictions can also influence how future offences are viewed. While not directly linked to the DVLA points system, repeated criminal convictions connected to vehicle use may affect judicial discretion, particularly where public safety is engaged.
Drivers should also be aware that the absence of licence endorsement does not prevent wider consequences. Insurers assess risk based on behaviour rather than endorsement status alone. A criminal conviction for obstructing or damaging the highway may still be treated as relevant risk information, especially where it suggests poor parking discipline or disregard for public safety.
Section E summary
Although most Highways Act 1980 offences do not carry penalty points, they remain criminal offences with real consequences. Convictions can result in fines, influence insurance risk assessments and contribute to wider enforcement and licensing issues, particularly when combined with other motoring offences.
Section F: How does the Highways Act interact with the Highway Code?
The Highways Act 1980 and the Highway Code operate alongside each other but perform different legal functions. For drivers, understanding this relationship is essential to assessing compliance risk. The Highway Code sets out rules and guidance for road users, while the Highways Act creates enforceable legal duties and criminal offences.
Some Highway Code rules reflect statutory obligations created by legislation, including the Highways Act. Where the Code uses mandatory language such as “must” or “must not”, the underlying requirement is supported by law. Breaching these rules can therefore amount to a criminal offence, even though the Highway Code itself is not the enforcing instrument.
Other Highway Code provisions are advisory, using language such as “should” or “should not”. Drivers often assume these can be ignored without consequence. In practice, advisory rules play an important evidential role. Courts frequently rely on them when assessing whether a driver’s conduct was reasonable for the purposes of Highways Act offences, particularly obstruction and misuse of the highway.
For example, Highway Code guidance on parking, pedestrian priority and keeping footways clear may be used to support the conclusion that a vehicle unreasonably interfered with public passage. Even where the Code does not create an offence in its own right, it can help establish whether the statutory test under the Highways Act has been met.
The Highway Code also has relevance beyond criminal enforcement. Insurers and civil courts regularly use it when assessing liability following accidents or injuries. A breach of Highway Code guidance, when combined with a Highways Act offence, can significantly strengthen claims that a driver failed to meet expected standards of care.
From a compliance perspective, drivers should treat the Highway Code as an interpretive framework that gives practical meaning to statutory duties. Ignoring advisory guidance does not protect a driver from liability if their actions are later judged unreasonable under the Highways Act.
Section F summary
The Highway Code informs how Highways Act duties are interpreted and enforced. Mandatory rules reflect legal obligations, while advisory guidance is often used as evidence of reasonableness, influencing criminal prosecutions, insurance assessments and civil liability.
Section G: Can Highways Act breaches affect insurance or civil liability?
Although the Highways Act 1980 is a criminal statute, its consequences often extend into insurance and civil liability. Drivers frequently focus on whether an offence carries penalty points, but insurers and civil courts assess risk and responsibility more broadly, taking account of criminal conduct connected to vehicle use.
A breach of the Highways Act may be relevant to motor insurance obligations. Many insurance policies require disclosure of motoring convictions, including non-endorseable offences, although disclosure requirements depend on the specific policy wording. Failure to disclose a relevant conviction where required can itself create insurance risk, including refusal of cover, increased premiums or policy cancellation.
Even where disclosure is properly made, insurers may treat a Highways Act conviction as evidence of higher-risk behaviour, particularly where the offence involves obstructive or unsafe parking. This can influence premium calculations, renewal terms or the availability of cover.
Highways Act breaches are also commonly relied upon in civil claims following accidents or injuries. Where a vehicle obstructs a pavement, verge or carriageway and a pedestrian, cyclist or other road user is injured as a result, the criminal offence can support allegations of negligence. Breach of a statutory duty does not automatically establish civil liability, but it can be powerful evidence that reasonable care was not taken.
Civil courts will often assess compliance with both statutory duties and accepted standards of behaviour, including those reflected in the Highway Code. A Highways Act offence, particularly when combined with non-compliance with Highway Code guidance, can materially affect findings on fault and contributory negligence.
There may also be financial consequences beyond insurance and damages. Local authorities can recover costs associated with removing obstructions or repairing damage to the highway. In some cases, drivers may face criminal penalties and civil recovery action arising from the same conduct.
From a long-term risk management perspective, repeated breaches of the Highways Act can indicate a pattern of non-compliance. This may influence how insurers, enforcement bodies and courts respond to future incidents, increasing the likelihood of stricter enforcement or less favourable treatment where discretion is available.
Section G summary
Breaching the Highways Act 1980 can affect far more than criminal liability. Convictions may need to be disclosed to insurers depending on policy terms, influence premiums or cover decisions, and play a decisive role in civil liability claims following accidents or injuries.
FAQs
Can I park partly on the pavement if other drivers do it?
No. The fact that other vehicles are parked in the same way does not make the parking lawful. If your vehicle unreasonably obstructs the highway, including a footway, you may commit an offence under the Highways Act 1980 regardless of local custom or enforcement frequency.
Is parking on a grass verge illegal?
It can be. If the verge forms part of the highway, parking on it may amount to obstruction of the highway or damage to it. The absence of signs or road markings does not remove this risk.
Does someone have to complain before enforcement action is taken?
No. Enforcement does not depend on a complaint. Local authorities or the police can take action based on observation alone, particularly where obstruction or safety risk is identified.
Do Highways Act offences carry penalty points?
Most Highways Act offences do not carry penalty points. However, they remain criminal offences and can result in fines, court proceedings and wider consequences, including insurance and civil liability impact.
Can I be prosecuted if no one was completely blocked from passing?
Yes. Obstruction does not need to be total. If passage is unreasonably impeded, even partially, an offence may be committed.
Does intent matter under the Highways Act?
Not in the way many drivers assume. Some offences operate on a strict liability basis. Others, such as obstruction, require wilfulness, which courts interpret broadly. It is usually enough that the driver deliberately parked or left the vehicle where it was.
Can loading or unloading justify stopping on a pavement or verge?
Only in limited circumstances. Any obstruction must be reasonable and necessary. Convenience, lack of alternative parking or routine loading will not usually justify obstructing the highway.
Can Highways Act offences affect insurance?
Yes. Convictions may need to be disclosed depending on the terms of the insurance policy and can influence premiums, cover terms and liability assessments following an incident.
Conclusion
The Highways Act 1980 plays a significant and often underestimated role in everyday motoring law. It governs not only how highways are protected and maintained, but how drivers may lawfully use them, particularly when parking, stopping or leaving vehicles unattended. Ordinary decisions involving pavements, verges and obstruction can carry criminal consequences even where no accident occurs and no signage is present.
For private motorists, the primary risk lies in misunderstanding the scope and operation of the law. The Act applies to any highway, broadly defined, and enforcement does not depend on malicious intent, inconvenience caused or informal local practice. The absence of penalty points does not remove the seriousness of an offence or its potential impact on insurance, civil liability and future enforcement.
A compliance-focused approach is therefore essential. Drivers who wish to protect their licence status, insurance position and long-term driving record should make parking and stopping decisions that would withstand scrutiny by enforcement officers, courts and insurers. Treating the Highways Act as a technicality rather than a core part of motoring law exposes drivers to avoidable legal and financial risk.
Glossary
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highway | Any way over which the public has a legal right to pass and repass, regardless of ownership or maintenance responsibility. This includes roads, pavements, footways, verges and some unadopted or privately owned routes. |
| Obstruction | Any act or omission that unreasonably interferes with the public’s right to use a highway. Obstruction does not need to be total and can include partial blockage or restriction of passage. |
| Footway | The part of a highway set aside primarily for pedestrian use, commonly referred to as a pavement. It remains part of the highway even though vehicles are not generally permitted to drive on it. |
| Verge | The area between the carriageway and the boundary of the highway, often grassed. A verge may form part of the highway and is protected under the Highways Act 1980. |
| Adopted road | A road maintained at public expense by the local highway authority. Adoption does not determine whether a road is a highway for legal purposes. |
| Unadopted road | A road not maintained at public expense. An unadopted road can still be a highway if the public has a legal right of way over it. |
| Strict liability | A legal principle where liability arises from the act itself regardless of intent or knowledge. Some, but not all, offences under the Highways Act operate on this basis. |
Useful Links
| Resource | Description |
|---|---|
Highways Act 1980 (legislation) | The full text of the Highways Act 1980, setting out legal duties, offences and enforcement powers relating to highways and public rights of way. |
The Highway Code | Official guidance for road users, including mandatory rules and advisory standards used by courts, insurers and enforcement bodies. |
Parking enforcement guidance (GOV.UK) | Government guidance on parking enforcement, local authority powers and related offences. |
Magistrates’ Court sentencing guidance | Sentencing principles applied to summary offences, including fines and enforcement considerations. |
Local authority highway powers | Guidance on how local authorities manage and enforce highway duties, including obstruction and damage. |
Author
Gill Laing is a qualified Legal Researcher & Analyst with niche specialisms in Law, Tax, Human Resources, Immigration & Employment Law.
Gill is a Multiple Business Owner and the Managing Director of Prof Services - a Marketing Agency for the Professional Services Sector.
