I am about to engage in a tussle with persistent, off footpath, off 
lead, riverbank dog walkers.

I have invoked the Water Vole protected mammal 1981 act and fenced off 
access to the bank from the existing footpath. However, it is likely 
that enough people will get together and fudge up some user evidence 
with a view to obtaining a definitive map modification order.

 From your boundless wisdom:-) can you inform me if landowner *deemed 
dedication* can operate if the land is tenanted?

I don't know the wording of the 1986 act but I believe my Father's 
tenancy included a clause requiring him to prevent the establishment of 
new public access rights.

I can cover issues like notices and people being turned out over the 
last 25 years as I was responsible but the 21 years unopposed use does 
not have to date back from the application date.

regards
-- 
Tim Lamb

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:11:43 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

> I am about to engage in a tussle with persistent, off footpath, off 
> lead, riverbank dog walkers.
> 
> I have invoked the Water Vole protected mammal 1981 act and fenced off 
> access to the bank from the existing footpath. However, it is likely 
> that enough people will get together and fudge up some user evidence 
> with a view to obtaining a definitive map modification order.
> 
>  From your boundless wisdom:-) 

Now I know you are desperate!  Are you in NFU or CLA at all?  They will
give far better advice than I could.

> can you inform me if landowner *deemed 
> dedication* can operate if the land is tenanted?

I think that it will depend on who has 'control' of the land.  Assuming it
is a full AHA tenancy then I would expect that it would be the tenant who
has such control and could give or deny lesser rights (shooting fishing
for example) unless specifically excluded under the tenancy.
>
> I don't know the wording of the 1986 act but I believe my Father's
> tenancy included a clause requiring him to prevent the establishment of
> new public access rights.

OK - the 86 Act doesn't actually set out a compulsory forms of words to be
used in a tenancy agreement hence the actual wording will be very
important - you should attempt to find a copy of the original tenancy if
at all possible.  This will help prove your case that there was no
intention to create any rights of access.

>
> I can cover issues like notices and people being turned out over the
> last 25 years as I was responsible but the 21 years unopposed use does
> not have to date back from the application date.

Are you thinking here of the 'village greens' legislation?  I know there
has been some case law on it nd a few years ago I was on the point of
instructing solicitors - but the claimants decided it wasn't worth the
hassle.  I don't know what the present state of play is.

Thinking of where you are and the proximity of the river I reckon that
I'd be wanting to get some proper advice on how to defend against any
actions that may be taken.

Sorry its not been a very helpful response!

In message <Z7KdnQnw4YLc2uPVRVnyhgA@posted.plusnet>, David P 
 writes
>>  From your boundless wisdom:-)
>
>Now I know you are desperate!  Are you in NFU or CLA at all?  They will
>give far better advice than I could.

Yes. CLA but you are much quicker:-)
>
>> can you inform me if landowner *deemed
>> dedication* can operate if the land is tenanted?
>
>I think that it will depend on who has 'control' of the land.  Assuming it
>is a full AHA tenancy then I would expect that it would be the tenant who
>has such control and could give or deny lesser rights (shooting fishing
>for example) unless specifically excluded under the tenancy.
>>
>> I don't know the wording of the 1986 act but I believe my Father's
>> tenancy included a clause requiring him to prevent the establishment of
>> new public access rights.
>
>OK - the 86 Act doesn't actually set out a compulsory forms of words to be
>used in a tenancy agreement hence the actual wording will be very
>important - you should attempt to find a copy of the original tenancy if
>at all possible.  This will help prove your case that there was no
>intention to create any rights of access.

Umm... The actual wording (tenancy dated 1952) is *NOT to sub-let, 
assign or part with possession of the farm or any part thereof*

Shooting, fishing, mineral rights, timber were reserved for the 
landlords together with the right to take any part of the farm, except 
the farmhouse or buildings on 6 months notice plus compensation for loss 
of crops and pro rata reduction in rent.
>
>>
>> I can cover issues like notices and people being turned out over the
>> last 25 years as I was responsible but the 21 years unopposed use does
>> not have to date back from the application date.
>
>Are you thinking here of the 'village greens' legislation?  I know there
>has been some case law on it nd a few years ago I was on the point of
>instructing solicitors - but the claimants decided it wasn't worth the
>hassle.  I don't know what the present state of play is.

I was actually thinking of users claiming new rights of way and hadn't 
considered *village greens*. I vaguely thought they had to be registered 
before some date or other.
>
>Thinking of where you are and the proximity of the river I reckon that
>I'd be wanting to get some proper advice on how to defend against any
>actions that may be taken.

At present I believe I have the support of at least some of the Parish 
Council. Nobody really likes dog walkers:-)
>
>Sorry its not been a very helpful response!
:-)

The water is a little muddy in that our fishing club withdrew an 
application to create a backwater which would have had a similar effect 
to my fence.

I will research village greens cases and worry some more!

Thanks

-- 
Tim Lamb

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:05:54 +0100, Tim Lamb
 wrote:

>Umm... The actual wording (tenancy dated 1952) is *NOT to sub-let, 
>assign or part with possession of the farm or any part thereof*

OK that just means the tenant would have breached the tenancy by
acquiescing to creation of a public right, it wouldn't change the
public right.

>>> I can cover issues like notices and people being turned out over the
>>> last 25 years as I was responsible but the 21 years unopposed use does
>>> not have to date back from the application date.

Maybe not but finding a suitable number of witnesses may be a problem
without some distortions of the truth.
>>
>>Are you thinking here of the 'village greens' legislation?  I know there
>>has been some case law on it nd a few years ago I was on the point of
>>instructing solicitors - but the claimants decided it wasn't worth the
>>hassle.  I don't know what the present state of play is.
>
>I was actually thinking of users claiming new rights of way and hadn't 
>considered *village greens*. I vaguely thought they had to be registered 


That was the 1965 commons registration act, the village green thing
became an option for preserving new open space after the 2006 commons
act.

AJH

In message , AJH 
 writes
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:05:54 +0100, Tim Lamb
> wrote:
>
>>Umm... The actual wording (tenancy dated 1952) is *NOT to sub-let,
>>assign or part with possession of the farm or any part thereof*
>
>OK that just means the tenant would have breached the tenancy by
>acquiescing to creation of a public right, it wouldn't change the
>public right.

Right but it also means that the landowner, by inserting the clause, 
could not be held to have *deemed consent*.
>
>>>> I can cover issues like notices and people being turned out over the
>>>> last 25 years as I was responsible but the 21 years unopposed use does
>>>> not have to date back from the application date.
>
>Maybe not but finding a suitable number of witnesses may be a problem
>without some distortions of the truth.

Huh! I'll bet a lot more come forward prepared to tell a few lies than 
come forward to admit being turned back to the footpath:-(
>>>
>>>Are you thinking here of the 'village greens' legislation?  I know there
>>>has been some case law on it nd a few years ago I was on the point of
>>>instructing solicitors - but the claimants decided it wasn't worth the
>>>hassle.  I don't know what the present state of play is.
>>
>>I was actually thinking of users claiming new rights of way and hadn't
>>considered *village greens*. I vaguely thought they had to be registered
>
>
>That was the 1965 commons registration act, the village green thing
>became an option for preserving new open space after the 2006 commons
>act.

I have been reading up on this.

regards

-- 
Tim Lamb

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:28:51 +0100, Tim Lamb
 wrote:

>In message , AJH 
> writes

>>OK that just means the tenant would have breached the tenancy by
>>acquiescing to creation of a public right, it wouldn't change the
>>public right.
>
>Right but it also means that the landowner, by inserting the clause, 
>could not be held to have *deemed consent*.

Yes but outside of 20 years use...
>>
>>>>> I can cover issues like notices and people being turned out over the
>>>>> last 25 years as I was responsible but the 21 years unopposed use does
>>>>> not have to date back from the application date.
>>
>>Maybe not but finding a suitable number of witnesses may be a problem
>>without some distortions of the truth.
>
>Huh! I'll bet a lot more come forward prepared to tell a few lies than 
>come forward to admit being turned back to the footpath:-(

Yes, I have no doubt of that!


AJH

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:40:46 +0100, AJH wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:05:54 +0100, Tim Lamb
>  wrote:
> 
>>Umm... The actual wording (tenancy dated 1952) is *NOT to sub-let, 
>>assign or part with possession of the farm or any part thereof*
> 
> OK that just means the tenant would have breached the tenancy by
> acquiescing to creation of a public right,

Umm, I'm not sure that it does.  There is often some extra words that say
something like 'not to cause or permit nor to create any right of way'. 
Its probably not common in older AHA tenancies but I undrstand its
creeping into the more recent ones and following similar wording to that
found it certain 'property' leases.

> it wouldn't change the
> public right.

Agreed though my extra wording above would demonstrate clearly that
neither landlord nor tenant was wanting any r.o.w creating and that, I
think, is what Tim is actually after.
>

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:28:51 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

> In message , AJH 
>  writes
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:05:54 +0100, Tim Lamb
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Umm... The actual wording (tenancy dated 1952) is *NOT to sub-let,
>>>assign or part with possession of the farm or any part thereof*
>>
>>OK that just means the tenant would have breached the tenancy by
>>acquiescing to creation of a public right, it wouldn't change the
>>public right.
> 
> Right but it also means that the landowner, by inserting the clause, 
> could not be held to have *deemed consent*.

I don't think so as a row is not actually a parting with possession as the
legal interest is still held but with a lesser right to pass over it. 
Possession has not actually been lost per se.  Other post contains a
clarification of what extra words would, I think, be needed.
>>
>>>>> I can cover issues like notices and people being turned out over the
>>>>> last 25 years as I was responsible but the 21 years unopposed use
>>>>> does not have to date back from the application date.
>>
>>Maybe not but finding a suitable number of witnesses may be a problem
>>without some distortions of the truth.
> 
> Huh! I'll bet a lot more come forward prepared to tell a few lies than
> come forward to admit being turned back to the footpath:-(

Yup!

In message <W_adnUiFpt6OQh3VnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, David P 
 writes
>Umm, I'm not sure that it does.  There is often some extra words that say
>something like 'not to cause or permit nor to create any right of way'.
>Its probably not common in older AHA tenancies but I undrstand its
>creeping into the more recent ones and following similar wording to that
>found it certain 'property' leases.
>
>> it wouldn't change the
>> public right.
>
>Agreed though my extra wording above would demonstrate clearly that
>neither landlord nor tenant was wanting any r.o.w creating and that, I
>think, is what Tim is actually after.

OK David. Thanks. It was just a thought. The sooner these 20 year 
stupidities are done away with the better.

Luckily the idiot causing the most fuss is from out of the district and 
is set on heading off an application to create backwaters for additional 
fishing.

regards
>>

-- 
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:

> In message <W_adnUiFpt6OQh3VnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, David P
>  writes
>>Umm, I'm not sure that it does.  There is often some extra words that say
>>something like 'not to cause or permit nor to create any right of way'.
>>Its probably not common in older AHA tenancies but I undrstand its
>>creeping into the more recent ones and following similar wording to that
>>found it certain 'property' leases.

So what? Whatever is put in the tenancy agreement is a civil contract
between landlord and tenant, it will have no bearing on whether a public
right has been created. The only way to prevent deemed dedication is to
physically make it impossible, for the trespass to be secretl or lodge a
statement with the local authority every six years, there is another way
but I'm not going to mention it here.
>>
>>> it wouldn't change the
>>> public right.
>>
>>Agreed though my extra wording above would demonstrate clearly that
>>neither landlord nor tenant was wanting any r.o.w creating and that, I
>>think, is what Tim is actually after.

What I said was that if this statement was in the tenancy agreement and that
agreement is more than 20 years old then it wouldn't hold up.
> 
> OK David. Thanks. It was just a thought. The sooner these 20 year
> stupidities are done away with the better.

They're not being done away with, the time meter is just being tripped back
to zero in 2020, the laws on prescriptive rights haven't changed.
> 
> Luckily the idiot causing the most fuss 

You haven't said what the fuss is about, without the support of one of the
bodies the highway authority have a statutory duty to consult he'll be
lucky to succeed.

Can you value the freehold with and without a prow on it? With so much
developers' dosh sloshing about...


AJH

In message , andrew 
 writes

>> OK David. Thanks. It was just a thought. The sooner these 20 year
>> stupidities are done away with the better.
>
>They're not being done away with, the time meter is just being tripped back
>to zero in 2020, the laws on prescriptive rights haven't changed.

I think they should be! On what reasonable grounds would you expect 
rights to be created over private land simply by the user pretending he 
does not know the ownership and being too idle to ask permission?
>>
>> Luckily the idiot causing the most fuss
>
>You haven't said what the fuss is about, without the support of one of the
>bodies the highway authority have a statutory duty to consult he'll be
>lucky to succeed.

This is a public forum. Mostly to do with dog walkers being prevented 
from exercising their dogs along and in a stretch of river. There may be 
an element of changing some nice landscape. The wildlife groups will 
support my position.
>
>Can you value the freehold with and without a prow on it? With so much
>developers' dosh sloshing about...

I suppose I could *pro rata* the bank length currently available for 
fishing.

regards

-- 
Tim Lamb

In article <+g+sECEQTZgIFwu7@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
<URL:mailto:tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message , andrew 
>  writes
> 
> >> OK David. Thanks. It was just a thought. The sooner these 20 year
> >> stupidities are done away with the better.
> >
> >They're not being done away with, the time meter is just being tripped back
> >to zero in 2020, the laws on prescriptive rights haven't changed.
> 
> I think they should be! On what reasonable grounds would you expect 
> rights to be created over private land simply by the user pretending he 
> does not know the ownership and being too idle to ask permission?

If it's just one or two people is there a case for granting a prescriptive
right to them -only- whilst reinstating the position re the public?

> >> Luckily the idiot causing the most fuss
> >
> >You haven't said what the fuss is about, without the support of one of the
> >bodies the highway authority have a statutory duty to consult he'll be
> >lucky to succeed.
> 
> This is a public forum. Mostly to do with dog walkers being prevented 
> from exercising their dogs along and in a stretch of river. There may be 
> an element of changing some nice landscape. The wildlife groups will 
> support my position.

Is it a seasonal problem? ie. might it be ameliorated by applying
restrictions during two months of nesting season and relaxing them the
rest of the year?

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

Derek Moody wrote:

> If it's just one or two people is there a case for granting a prescriptive
> right to them -only- whilst reinstating the position re the public?

If that's the case then an application for a public right will fail, you
generally need at least 6 and probably 20 witnesses of public right.
> 
>> >> Luckily the idiot causing the most fuss
>> >
>> >You haven't said what the fuss is about, without the support of one of
>> >the bodies the highway authority have a statutory duty to consult he'll
>> >be lucky to succeed.
>> 
>> This is a public forum. Mostly to do with dog walkers being prevented
>> from exercising their dogs along and in a stretch of river. There may be
>> an element of changing some nice landscape. The wildlife groups will
>> support my position.
> 
> Is it a seasonal problem? ie. might it be ameliorated by applying
> restrictions during two months of nesting season and relaxing them the
> rest of the year?

If it were a permissive use then it is not freely and openly used, hence no
public right will be acquired, still best done by lodging a statement at
the highway authority, I generally oppose these permissive statements and
trigger a right of way process if I think they are being used to extinguish
a deemed dedication.

AJH

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:20:11 +0100, andrew wrote:

> Tim Lamb wrote:
> 
>> In message <W_adnUiFpt6OQh3VnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, David P
>>  writes
>>>Umm, I'm not sure that it does.  There is often some extra words that say
>>>something like 'not to cause or permit nor to create any right of way'.
>>>Its probably not common in older AHA tenancies but I undrstand its
>>>creeping into the more recent ones and following similar wording to that
>>>found it certain 'property' leases.
> 
> So what? Whatever is put in the tenancy agreement is a civil contract
> between landlord and tenant, it will have no bearing on whether a public
> right has been created. 

No but it goes towards proof that neither L/ld nor tenant would
willingly grant or allow a right of way.  ie they have not acquiesced
in its creation as their is clear written intent not to create any such
right.

>>>
>>>> it wouldn't change the
>>>> public right.
>>>
>>>Agreed though my extra wording above would demonstrate clearly that
>>>neither landlord nor tenant was wanting any r.o.w creating and that, I
>>>think, is what Tim is actually after.
> 
> What I said was that if this statement was in the tenancy agreement and
> that agreement is more than 20 years old then it wouldn't hold up.

What it does do is indicate clear intent by both landlord and tenant at
the time up to expiry of agreement.  After that time the landlord was in
occupation due to purchase of interest (I guess) and there is then the
knowledge from the person that they would not allow any rights to be
created.

David P wrote:

> What it does do is indicate clear intent by both landlord and tenant at
> the time up to expiry of agreement.  After that time the landlord was in
> occupation due to purchase of interest (I guess) and there is then the
> knowledge from the person that they would not allow any rights to be
> created.

I'm sure there would never have been an intent to allow the creation of a
prow but I was pointing out that this has to be more than within a private
agreement between tenant and landlord. The use has either to be prevented
or permissive, turning a blind eye is the same as acquiescing.

AJH

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:30:18 +0100, andrew wrote:

> David P wrote:
> 
>> What it does do is indicate clear intent by both landlord and tenant at
>> the time up to expiry of agreement.  After that time the landlord was in
>> occupation due to purchase of interest (I guess) and there is then the
>> knowledge from the person that they would not allow any rights to be
>> created.
> 
> I'm sure there would never have been an intent to allow the creation of a
> prow but I was pointing out that this has to be more than within a private
> agreement between tenant and landlord. The use has either to be prevented
> or permissive, turning a blind eye is the same as acquiescing.
> 

OK

In message <OMCdne6y3YLrvh_VnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, David P 
 writes
>>>>> it wouldn't change the
>>>>> public right.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed though my extra wording above would demonstrate clearly that
>>>>neither landlord nor tenant was wanting any r.o.w creating and that, I
>>>>think, is what Tim is actually after.
>>
>> What I said was that if this statement was in the tenancy agreement and
>> that agreement is more than 20 years old then it wouldn't hold up.
>
>What it does do is indicate clear intent by both landlord and tenant at
>the time up to expiry of agreement.  After that time the landlord was in
>occupation due to purchase of interest (I guess) and there is then the
>knowledge from the person that they would not allow any rights to be
>created.

The full wording was not in the agreement so it is all a bit 
hypothetical. We purchased as sitting tenants in 1993 so well short of 
20 years ago.  As David says, I had hoped the tenancy clause would have 
prevented the clock starting.

Part of the problem has been that the fishing club have to honour the 
close season so trespassers have 3 months of unopposed access.

Oh well.

regards




-- 
Tim Lamb

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:46:25 +0100, Tim Lamb
 wrote:

>Part of the problem has been that the fishing club have to honour the 
>close season so trespassers have 3 months of unopposed access.

I don't think three months would count as free access, after all we
only close gates one day a year to prevent a vehicular right on our
tracks, which otherwise have to remain open for residential access.

I wonder if at other times people walking the river bank have been at
the invitation of the fishing club...

AJH

On 2008-07-20, AJH  wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:46:25 +0100, Tim Lamb
> wrote:
>
>>Part of the problem has been that the fishing club have to honour the 
>>close season so trespassers have 3 months of unopposed access.
>
> I don't think three months would count as free access, after all we
> only close gates one day a year to prevent a vehicular right on our
> tracks, which otherwise have to remain open for residential access.
>
> I wonder if at other times people walking the river bank have been at
> the invitation of the fishing club...
>
> AJH
>

The irish Army blocks off access to roads on the Curragh for one day every
year to prevent access rights. (This is on public areas, the strictly
military areas are different). There is a lot of debate about all this,
even here, where (on account of depopulation over the years), a lot of
rights-of-way were forfeit, and nobody worried, but in very recent times,
the 'townies' that have moved in are trying to reopen some. Against that,
the `old neighbours` resent some of the `townies` trying to fence off
genuine access rights. Whole area is grey.


-- 
Greymaus
 .
  .
...

In article , AJH
<URL:mailto:news@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:46:25 +0100, Tim Lamb
>  wrote:
> 
> >Part of the problem has been that the fishing club have to honour the 
> >close season so trespassers have 3 months of unopposed access.
> 
> I don't think three months would count as free access, after all we
> only close gates one day a year to prevent a vehicular right on our
> tracks, which otherwise have to remain open for residential access.
> 
> I wonder if at other times people walking the river bank have been at
> the invitation of the fishing club...

Reminds me of the old situation on parts of Dartmoor, not sure what applies
since rtr.  There were riparian areas with no general right of access but
for which it was possible to buy a cheap trout fishing permit.  A fair
number of walkers bought permits but didn't fish.

Your fishing club will have no objection to access being shut in the closed
season - and they probably wouldn't object to a lock being used in season as
long as they had means to open it.  Combination locks are easiest to manage.

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

greymaus  wrote:

> The irish Army blocks off access to roads on the Curragh for one day every
> year to prevent access rights. (This is on public areas, the strictly
> military areas are different). There is a lot of debate about all this,
> even here, where (on account of depopulation over the years), a lot of
> rights-of-way were forfeit, and nobody worried, but in very recent times,
> the 'townies' that have moved in are trying to reopen some. Against that,
> the `old neighbours` resent some of the `townies` trying to fence off
> genuine access rights. Whole area is grey.

Similar issues here in Hampshire. And the army polices the military
roads zealously - I think they use them as a training ground for the
redcaps. Incomers (of which I am one) are also regarded suspiciously
because of silly habits such as obstructing RoW. A neighbour illegally
diverted a long-distance footpath from his land and onto a neighbour's
land simply because he didn't like walkers using the path between his
new conservatory and the greenhouse.

We've also had people complaining that cockerels crow, tractors make
noise, dung smells and harvesting creates clouds of thrips. I wonder
what they expected when they moved to the country, some sort of
Technicolor Disney dream, I expect.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:46:25 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

> In message <OMCdne6y3YLrvh_VnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, David P 
>  writes
>>>>>> it wouldn't change the
>>>>>> public right.
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed though my extra wording above would demonstrate clearly that
>>>>>neither landlord nor tenant was wanting any r.o.w creating and that, I
>>>>>think, is what Tim is actually after.
>>>
>>> What I said was that if this statement was in the tenancy agreement and
>>> that agreement is more than 20 years old then it wouldn't hold up.
>>
>>What it does do is indicate clear intent by both landlord and tenant at
>>the time up to expiry of agreement.  After that time the landlord was in
>>occupation due to purchase of interest (I guess) and there is then the
>>knowledge from the person that they would not allow any rights to be
>>created.
> 
> The full wording was not in the agreement so it is all a bit 
> hypothetical. We purchased as sitting tenants in 1993 so well short of 
> 20 years ago.  As David says, I had hoped the tenancy clause would have 
> prevented the clock starting.
> 
> Part of the problem has been that the fishing club have to honour the 
> close season so trespassers have 3 months of unopposed access.
> 
>
Rewording this . . . access is closed 9 months of the year
during the fishing season unless by specific invite and consent of the
club.  During the close season access is permitted only to the extent that
it does not interfere with farming operations on and around the land in
question and subject also to those taking opportunity of the invitiation
to walk during the limited 3 month period each year not to cause damage or
nuisance to the fishery.  

I think that, or something similar, is what you actually meant to say.

On 2008-07-20, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> greymaus  wrote:
>
>
> Similar issues here in Hampshire. And the army polices the military
> roads zealously - I think they use them as a training ground for the
> redcaps. Incomers (of which I am one) are also regarded suspiciously

I really like it when people deal with the redcaps the first time. Real
educational experience, specially in military areas.


> because of silly habits such as obstructing RoW. A neighbour illegally
> diverted a long-distance footpath from his land and onto a neighbour's
> land simply because he didn't like walkers using the path between his
> new conservatory and the greenhouse.
>
> We've also had people complaining that cockerels crow, tractors make
> noise, dung smells and harvesting creates clouds of thrips. I wonder
> what they expected when they moved to the country, some sort of
> Technicolor Disney dream, I expect.

Man was telling me how glad he was for getting out of the city. He moved
to a large housing estate.


-- 
Greymaus
 .
  .
...

In message <Q7mdnZdjCppdyR7V4p2dnAA@plusnet>, David P  
writes
>> The full wording was not in the agreement so it is all a bit
>> hypothetical. We purchased as sitting tenants in 1993 so well short of
>> 20 years ago.  As David says, I had hoped the tenancy clause would have
>> prevented the clock starting.
>>
>> Part of the problem has been that the fishing club have to honour the
>> close season so trespassers have 3 months of unopposed access.
>>
>>
>Rewording this . . . access is closed 9 months of the year
>during the fishing season unless by specific invite and consent of the
>club.  During the close season access is permitted only to the extent that
>it does not interfere with farming operations on and around the land in
>question and subject also to those taking opportunity of the invitiation
>to walk during the limited 3 month period each year not to cause damage or
>nuisance to the fishery.
>
>I think that, or something similar, is what you actually meant to say.

Er... no. What I mean to say is what I actually do say which is will you 
kindly get your dog out of the river and return to the public footpath. 
I have had only three refusals in 25 years. One involved a tussle which 
ended with me sitting on him, local bobby quietly warned him about 
activities liable to lead to a breach of the peace. The second also 
involved the police which he insisted on calling. The officers attending 
did not seem to know much about civil law but seemed to prefer my 
version to his. The third, earlier this year, said he would take his 
dogs where he pleased which led to the fence going up.

regards

-- 
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:
The third, earlier this year, said he would take his
> dogs where he pleased which led to the fence going up.

Put some sheep there and tell him you will shoot the dogs if they go 
near your sheep?

-- 
Howard Neil

Tim Lamb wrote:

> Er... no. What I mean to say is what I actually do say which is will you
> kindly get your dog out of the river and return to the public footpath.
> I have had only three refusals in 25 years. One involved a tussle which
> ended with me sitting on him, local bobby quietly warned him about
> activities liable to lead to a breach of the peace. The second also
> involved the police which he insisted on calling. The officers attending
> did not seem to know much about civil law but seemed to prefer my
> version to his.

I don't see how you have much to worry about with this evidence, did you
keep any record or note the PC's identity or dates?

> The third, earlier this year, said he would take his 
> dogs where he pleased which led to the fence going up.
> 

Again this is good evidence that you have prevented entry.

AJH

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:24:08 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

> In message <Q7mdnZdjCppdyR7V4p2dnAA@plusnet>, David P  
> writes

>>>
>>> Part of the problem has been that the fishing club have to honour the
>>> close season so trespassers have 3 months of unopposed access.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I think that, or something similar, is what you actually meant to say.
> 
> Er... no. What I mean to say is what I actually do say which is will you 
> kindly get your dog out of the river and return to the public footpath. 
> I have had only three refusals in 25 years. One involved a tussle which 
> ended with me sitting on him, local bobby quietly warned him about 
> activities liable to lead to a breach of the peace. The second also 
> involved the police which he insisted on calling. The officers attending 
> did not seem to know much about civil law but seemed to prefer my 
> version to his. The third, earlier this year, said he would take his 
> dogs where he pleased which led to the fence going up.
> 

With that kind of evidence (especially if there is a chance of getting an
incident report from the police, you have a very clear case IMO.

In message <1JOdnTN4WpU9Ah7VnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Howard 
Neil  writes
>
>Tim Lamb wrote:
>The third, earlier this year, said he would take his
>> dogs where he pleased which led to the fence going up.
>
>Put some sheep there and tell him you will shoot the dogs if they go 
>near your sheep?

The Welsh solution?

At present the fence works fine. However, I suspect disgruntled folk are 
beavering away trying to justify a forced removal.

regards
>

-- 
Tim Lamb

In message , andrew 
 writes
>Tim Lamb wrote:
>
>> Er... no. What I mean to say is what I actually do say which is will you
>> kindly get your dog out of the river and return to the public footpath.
>> I have had only three refusals in 25 years. One involved a tussle which
>> ended with me sitting on him, local bobby quietly warned him about
>> activities liable to lead to a breach of the peace. The second also
>> involved the police which he insisted on calling. The officers attending
>> did not seem to know much about civil law but seemed to prefer my
>> version to his.
>
>I don't see how you have much to worry about with this evidence, did you
>keep any record or note the PC's identity or dates?

I keep diaries so the dates will be recorded. PC's identities are beyond 
recall.

I haven't mentioned the occasion when St. Albans College of Art were 
entertaining some German visitors to an impromptu picnic:-) Again, the 
police were involved. This was well away from the river so not really 
relevant.
>
>> The third, earlier this year, said he would take his
>> dogs where he pleased which led to the fence going up.
>>
>
>Again this is good evidence that you have prevented entry.

He might actually be supportive: having acquired some land locally and 
suffering similar problems.

regards
-- 
Tim Lamb

In message <Q7mdnZBjCpq-NR7V4p2dnAA@plusnet>, David P  
writes
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:24:08 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>
>> In message <Q7mdnZdjCppdyR7V4p2dnAA@plusnet>, David P 
>> writes
>
>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem has been that the fishing club have to honour the
>>>> close season so trespassers have 3 months of unopposed access.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I think that, or something similar, is what you actually meant to say.
>>
>> Er... no. What I mean to say is what I actually do say which is will you
>> kindly get your dog out of the river and return to the public footpath.
>> I have had only three refusals in 25 years. One involved a tussle which
>> ended with me sitting on him, local bobby quietly warned him about
>> activities liable to lead to a breach of the peace. The second also
>> involved the police which he insisted on calling. The officers attending
>> did not seem to know much about civil law but seemed to prefer my
>> version to his. The third, earlier this year, said he would take his
>> dogs where he pleased which led to the fence going up.
>>
>
>With that kind of evidence (especially if there is a chance of getting an
>incident report from the police, you have a very clear case IMO.

Fingers crossed!

regards

-- 
Tim Lamb