While not knowledgeable enough to question your answer to GR of Maidstone regarding his problem with an abandoned Transit in her road, I seem to recall in my past police days (ex-Kent 1962-1992) the offence, under the old Highways Act 1959, of Wilful Obstruction.

The mere fact that a somebody wilfully leaves a motor vehicle on the 'highway' in such a way that it prevents another member of the public to pass or re-pass over that part of the highway - and is asked to remove the obstruction by a police officer - and refuses. That person is guilty of wilful obstruction.

I do not know whether such case law is still valid because I have not been involved with enforcement for many years, but the following case seems to prove that NO-ONE has a right to wilfully obstruct the public highway and he commits an offence if he refuses a police officer's reasonable request to remove the obstruction.

The case was NAGY v WESTON (1965) 280 1 W.L.R. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 1964 Nov. 27 under Lord Parker C.J., Ashworth and Brabin (freebeagles.org/caselaw/CL_ob_nagy_full.html) I realise that the efforts required to get a police officer to carry out such a mundane request these days may be seen as tiresome, but if you were to stand in a police officer's way, and he told you to move, you would be arrested if you failed so to do.

The Transit was wilfully parked and left on the public highway and is regarded by GR as an obstruction. What is the difference? Absence of yellow lines, etc., should make no difference to the 'obstruction'.