|
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
|
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Mike" wrote in message ... Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike Some allotments I know now have much less of a vandal problem since the blackberries were planted along the boundary :-)) Steve |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
The message
from "shazzbat" contains these words: Some allotments I know now have much less of a vandal problem since the blackberries were planted along the boundary :-)) I prefer planting bulbs - what's their name? Ah yes! Achtung minen. -- Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano, iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03) |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
Steve Harris30/12/03 9:00
In article , (Bigjon) wrote: It is not legal in the UK to use anything on a property boundary line to a public highway or right of way that could injure a person - regardless of any motivation for crossing it. Local bye-laws may also prohibit the use of deterents on party boundaries as well... Tell that to our local council! A lot of their premises have spiky fences, etc. Or a well known government establishment in Cheltenham which has razor wire to stop the employees getting out :-) Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? I think you're right, however unlikely such a crossing might seem. In my last house, I cut down a high and horrible leylandii hedge which had pushed a low, single skin, brick wall and some railings out of shape quite badly. I repaired the brick wall with a double skin (into the hollow of which I planted all sorts of nice things) and replaced the iron railings with new ones. The originals were spiked. I was not allowed to replace them with the same style - both the blacksmith and a health and safety bod told me that. The finials (if that's the correct word) had to be blunted, round shapes at the top of each upright. No shishkebabbed Devon passers by for me! ;-) -- Sacha (remove the 'x' to email me) |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
Mike declared:
Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). The local councils make the bylaws, and certain premises are often exempt, - schools, some factories, shops and yards etc. Although the general public at large have a right to apply for planning permission to erect similar defences, the problem is that you will need very strong grounds to get that permission, which will 9 times out of 10 be refused. Just because they are sometimes erroneously placed on domestic property boundaries does not mean it is "Legal" to do so, it just means nobody has reported it to the council planning dept yet. "Legality" is not really the issue anyway - the issue is whether or not a person has inadvertently broken a local bylaw, and although it is unlikely the council would bother to prosecute for a minor infringement, the property owner is providing _certain_ grounds for any injured party to sue them, no matter how or why they were in a position to get injured !! Jon (22 years in Local Government) -- Never argue with an idiot..... They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience http://www.topqualityfreeware.com/phpBB/index.php |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
In article , Bigjon
writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor -- David |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
In article , Bigjon
writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor -- David |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
In article , Bigjon
writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor -- David |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
In article , Bigjon
writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor -- David |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
In article , Bigjon
writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor -- David |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
wrote in message
... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather -- Spamtrap in operation. To reply to me direct put out the bins. To save yourself the trouble, reply to the Group. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
wrote in message
... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather -- Spamtrap in operation. To reply to me direct put out the bins. To save yourself the trouble, reply to the Group. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
In article , Bigjon
writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor -- David |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
In article , Bigjon
writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Climbers and vandals beware Mike Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor -- David |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
wrote in message
... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather -- Spamtrap in operation. To reply to me direct put out the bins. To save yourself the trouble, reply to the Group. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
Heather declared:
wrote in message ... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather You are correct ! Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. As for the occupiers duty towards trespassers, regardless of reason (including criminal intent, although the court are duty bound to take this into account) the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 is an update of the "common duty of care" section under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, that states where the "duty of care" is owed to all visitors and the occupier must take reasonable care to see they are reasonably safe. The 1957 act included the concept of "humanity" but it was difficult to gather from it in precisely how that concept differed from that of reasonableness. The 1984 act (sub-section 4) states under _Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors_ : .....[ ]...Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned....[ ]... And further : .....[ ]...the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection....[ ]... I think there was a copy here, but I can't open it... http://tinyurl.com/34r95 Jon (22 years in Local Government) -- Never argue with an idiot..... They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience http://www.topqualityfreeware.com/phpBB/index.php |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
wrote in message
... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather -- Spamtrap in operation. To reply to me direct put out the bins. To save yourself the trouble, reply to the Group. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
wrote in message
... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather -- Spamtrap in operation. To reply to me direct put out the bins. To save yourself the trouble, reply to the Group. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...] Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
Heather declared:
wrote in message ... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather You are correct ! Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. As for the occupiers duty towards trespassers, regardless of reason (including criminal intent, although the court are duty bound to take this into account) the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 is an update of the "common duty of care" section under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, that states where the "duty of care" is owed to all visitors and the occupier must take reasonable care to see they are reasonably safe. The 1957 act included the concept of "humanity" but it was difficult to gather from it in precisely how that concept differed from that of reasonableness. The 1984 act (sub-section 4) states under _Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors_ : .....[ ]...Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned....[ ]... And further : .....[ ]...the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection....[ ]... I think there was a copy here, but I can't open it... http://tinyurl.com/34r95 Jon (22 years in Local Government) -- Never argue with an idiot..... They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience http://www.topqualityfreeware.com/phpBB/index.php |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
Heather declared:
wrote in message ... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather You are correct ! Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. As for the occupiers duty towards trespassers, regardless of reason (including criminal intent, although the court are duty bound to take this into account) the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 is an update of the "common duty of care" section under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, that states where the "duty of care" is owed to all visitors and the occupier must take reasonable care to see they are reasonably safe. The 1957 act included the concept of "humanity" but it was difficult to gather from it in precisely how that concept differed from that of reasonableness. The 1984 act (sub-section 4) states under _Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors_ : .....[ ]...Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned....[ ]... And further : .....[ ]...the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection....[ ]... I think there was a copy here, but I can't open it... http://tinyurl.com/34r95 Jon (22 years in Local Government) -- Never argue with an idiot..... They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience http://www.topqualityfreeware.com/phpBB/index.php |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...] Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...] Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. Steve |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
Heather declared:
wrote in message ... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather You are correct ! Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. As for the occupiers duty towards trespassers, regardless of reason (including criminal intent, although the court are duty bound to take this into account) the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 is an update of the "common duty of care" section under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, that states where the "duty of care" is owed to all visitors and the occupier must take reasonable care to see they are reasonably safe. The 1957 act included the concept of "humanity" but it was difficult to gather from it in precisely how that concept differed from that of reasonableness. The 1984 act (sub-section 4) states under _Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors_ : .....[ ]...Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned....[ ]... And further : .....[ ]...the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection....[ ]... I think there was a copy here, but I can't open it... http://tinyurl.com/34r95 Jon (22 years in Local Government) -- Never argue with an idiot..... They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience http://www.topqualityfreeware.com/phpBB/index.php |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
Heather declared:
wrote in message ... In article , Bigjon writes Mike declared: Surely the restriction is that your boundary shouldn't injure the user of the right of way using it as such? Quite correct. We are just about to have a wire fence erected the full length of a Council Owned Playing Field. Wire on Concrete posts, leaning in at the top with barbed wire on. Quite INCORRECT. "...[ ]..If the deterrent causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you...[ ].." This includes fence/wall toppings that are at an accessible height, I.E. 2.5m and lower adjoining a public right of way (although there are great regional variations, this is a good rule of thumb). But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... Heather You are correct ! Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. As for the occupiers duty towards trespassers, regardless of reason (including criminal intent, although the court are duty bound to take this into account) the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 is an update of the "common duty of care" section under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, that states where the "duty of care" is owed to all visitors and the occupier must take reasonable care to see they are reasonably safe. The 1957 act included the concept of "humanity" but it was difficult to gather from it in precisely how that concept differed from that of reasonableness. The 1984 act (sub-section 4) states under _Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors_ : .....[ ]...Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned....[ ]... And further : .....[ ]...the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection....[ ]... I think there was a copy here, but I can't open it... http://tinyurl.com/34r95 Jon (22 years in Local Government) -- Never argue with an idiot..... They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience http://www.topqualityfreeware.com/phpBB/index.php |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. Steve |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. Steve |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
|
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
|
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:07:57 -0000, "shazzbat"
wrote: SNIP Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. a pair of bull terriers suffering an identity crisis. -- Martin |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:07:57 -0000, "shazzbat"
wrote: SNIP Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. a pair of bull terriers suffering an identity crisis. -- Martin |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...] Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...] Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message ... The message from contains these words: But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor Unwelcome visitors, thieves and burglars are entitled to go about their business unmolested by their victims, as Tony Martin discovered. Janet. Tony Martin stood up for his rights & I don't think he was in the wrong, just a little sloppy with his aim, but, not everyone lives in the middle of nowhere, would you be happy with loose shots flying about the streets in a town? Mind you, holding a shotgun in a town centre would probably be illegal, just as Tony Martins was, not only in the fact he didn't have a license but by the fact pump action guns were banned some time ago. |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om... "Heather" wrote in message ... [...] Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. Go on then. -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Mike Lyle" wrote in message om... "Heather" wrote in message ... [...] Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which he (the occupier) was aware. The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was seriously injured) could not read....... I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission. Mike. Go on then. -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) Coz your going to rob the house next door? Threw your stash over coz of a passing plod car? Ooops, thought it was my garden, got a phobia of doors? |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. Steve |
Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still be sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in that case, destroy the animal. Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier. Steve |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter