Next door has 2 large boughs overhaning his garden and a bit over the house;
the whole tree is 'out of balance'.
He's been on to Network Rail for about 3 years, trying to get the boughs
removed and has been fobbed off with various excuses.

On his last call, this week, he was told that the overhanging part is now
his responsibility, due to a change about a year ago. A 'friendly' solicitor
told him the same thing. Is this correct?

It seems to be a case of punishing the victim to protect the guilty; it also
raises several issues.
Getting permission to go onto the property - Railway; awkward neighbour.
Liability if it comes down - both to ones own property and third party
injury.

What if a bough came down and did damage/injury on the highway? Could happen
in some circumstances.

It seems to ludicrous I can believe it!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 02/03/2017 16:42, PeterC wrote:
Next door has 2 large boughs overhaning his garden and a bit over the house;
the whole tree is 'out of balance'.
He's been on to Network Rail for about 3 years, trying to get the boughs
removed and has been fobbed off with various excuses.

On his last call, this week, he was told that the overhanging part is now
his responsibility, due to a change about a year ago. A 'friendly' solicitor
told him the same thing. Is this correct?

It seems to be a case of punishing the victim to protect the guilty; it also
raises several issues.
Getting permission to go onto the property - Railway; awkward neighbour.
Liability if it comes down - both to ones own property and third party
injury.

What if a bough came down and did damage/injury on the highway? Could happen
in some circumstances.

It seems to ludicrous I can believe it!


gardenlaw.co.uk is a good place to ask. I'm not aware of any recent
changes to the law but AFAIK (assuming no Tree Preservation Order) this
has been the position for a very long time:
1) You are entitled to cut any branches that overhang your property at
the boundary, working from your land. You must offer the arisings to the
tree's owner but they do not have to accept. Disposal is then your
responsibility - you cannot just chuck the debris back over the fence.
2) If the overhanging branches threaten your property and you have made
the tree owner aware of the risk, they are responsible for any damage
caused. (The oft-quoted case law applies to root damage but I assume
branches are no different)

It might be worth getting his insurers to contact Network Rail if he has
legal cover.

--
Reentrant

On 02/03/2017 17:41, LSR wrote:
On 02/03/2017 16:42, PeterC wrote:
Next door has 2 large boughs overhaning his garden and a bit over the
house;
the whole tree is 'out of balance'.
He's been on to Network Rail for about 3 years, trying to get the boughs
removed and has been fobbed off with various excuses.

On his last call, this week, he was told that the overhanging part is now
his responsibility, due to a change about a year ago. A 'friendly'
solicitor
told him the same thing. Is this correct?

It seems to be a case of punishing the victim to protect the guilty;
it also
raises several issues.
Getting permission to go onto the property - Railway; awkward neighbour.
Liability if it comes down - both to ones own property and third party
injury.

What if a bough came down and did damage/injury on the highway? Could
happen
in some circumstances.

It seems to ludicrous I can believe it!


gardenlaw.co.uk is a good place to ask. I'm not aware of any recent
changes to the law but AFAIK (assuming no Tree Preservation Order) this
has been the position for a very long time:
1) You are entitled to cut any branches that overhang your property at
the boundary, working from your land. You must offer the arisings to the
tree's owner but they do not have to accept. Disposal is then your
responsibility - you cannot just chuck the debris back over the fence.
2) If the overhanging branches threaten your property and you have made
the tree owner aware of the risk, they are responsible for any damage
caused. (The oft-quoted case law applies to root damage but I assume
branches are no different)

It might be worth getting his insurers to contact Network Rail if he has
legal cover.


If the branches are overhanging a house it might be a good idea to
enlist the services of a tree surgeon. If cutting the branches will
unbalance the tree it would be sensible to tell Network rail.


--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Basically, I think what they refer to is that you can now cut the offending
branches and as long as you chuck all the cuttings over the other side, then
that is fine.
I was told this is basically a safety issue. IE if you are in danger due to
a possible falling tree, you can take direct action.
Of course what happens if the tree then topples the other way and hits
something or someone is probably just going to give the lawyers more money
and work... :-)

I don't recall the law actually changing but the term I heard was clarified,
so perhaps there was some kind of case that meant the interpretation had
been clarified.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"PeterC" wrote in message
...
Next door has 2 large boughs overhaning his garden and a bit over the
house;
the whole tree is 'out of balance'.
He's been on to Network Rail for about 3 years, trying to get the boughs
removed and has been fobbed off with various excuses.

On his last call, this week, he was told that the overhanging part is now
his responsibility, due to a change about a year ago. A 'friendly'
solicitor
told him the same thing. Is this correct?

It seems to be a case of punishing the victim to protect the guilty; it
also
raises several issues.
Getting permission to go onto the property - Railway; awkward neighbour.
Liability if it comes down - both to ones own property and third party
injury.

What if a bough came down and did damage/injury on the highway? Could
happen
in some circumstances.

It seems to ludicrous I can believe it!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

I think you canjust chuck it back as long as you tell them in good time.

Obviously you have to do it from your land or it might be considered
trespass, wyhich is a civil matter.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"LSR" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 02/03/2017 16:42, PeterC wrote:
Next door has 2 large boughs overhaning his garden and a bit over the
house;
the whole tree is 'out of balance'.
He's been on to Network Rail for about 3 years, trying to get the boughs
removed and has been fobbed off with various excuses.

On his last call, this week, he was told that the overhanging part is now
his responsibility, due to a change about a year ago. A 'friendly'
solicitor
told him the same thing. Is this correct?

It seems to be a case of punishing the victim to protect the guilty; it
also
raises several issues.
Getting permission to go onto the property - Railway; awkward neighbour.
Liability if it comes down - both to ones own property and third party
injury.

What if a bough came down and did damage/injury on the highway? Could
happen
in some circumstances.

It seems to ludicrous I can believe it!


gardenlaw.co.uk is a good place to ask. I'm not aware of any recent
changes to the law but AFAIK (assuming no Tree Preservation Order) this
has been the position for a very long time:
1) You are entitled to cut any branches that overhang your property at the
boundary, working from your land. You must offer the arisings to the
tree's owner but they do not have to accept. Disposal is then your
responsibility - you cannot just chuck the debris back over the fence.
2) If the overhanging branches threaten your property and you have made
the tree owner aware of the risk, they are responsible for any damage
caused. (The oft-quoted case law applies to root damage but I assume
branches are no different)

It might be worth getting his insurers to contact Network Rail if he has
legal cover.

--
Reentrant

On 03/03/2017 08:51, Brian Gaff wrote:

I think you will find that you don't have a right to throw cuttings over
the fence without the neighbour's permission.

And bear in mind there's pressure on authorities to increase the number
of convictions for fly-tipping

I think you canjust chuck it back as long as you tell them in good time.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 03/03/2017 09:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

Basically, I think what they refer to is that you can now cut the
offending branches and as long as you chuck all the cuttings over the
other side, then that is fine.
I was told this is basically a safety issue. IE if you are in danger
due to a possible falling tree, you can take direct action.

You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.

Would that be part of the branch that overhangs, or the whole branch?

On 03/03/2017 09:58, Robin wrote:
On 03/03/2017 08:51, Brian Gaff wrote:

I think you will find that you don't have a right to throw cuttings over
the fence without the neighbour's permission.

And bear in mind there's pressure on authorities to increase the number
of convictions for fly-tipping

I think you canjust chuck it back as long as you tell them in good time.



My local authority tree preservation officer told me last year that you
may cut back to the boundary, you MUST offer the cuttings to the owner
of the tree - they do NOT have to accept them and if you just throw them
back you are guilty of fly tipping. Assuming that there isn't a tree
preservation order in force.

Peter

On 03/03/2017 09:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

Basically, I think what they refer to is that you can now cut the
offending branches and as long as you chuck all the cuttings over the
other side, then that is fine.
I was told this is basically a safety issue. IE if you are in danger
due to a possible falling tree, you can take direct action.

You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.


Even if it has a TPO on it?

On 03/03/2017 11:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/03/2017 09:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

Basically, I think what they refer to is that you can now cut the
offending branches and as long as you chuck all the cuttings over the
other side, then that is fine.
I was told this is basically a safety issue. IE if you are in danger
due to a possible falling tree, you can take direct action.

You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.


Even if it has a TPO on it?

It's also a problem if in a conservation area.

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I think you canjust chuck it back as long as you tell them in good time.

Think you have to offer it to the owner. But if they don't want it it's up
to you to dispose of it.

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.

Would that be part of the branch that overhangs, or the whole branch?

Just the bit that overhangs your property. Rather obviously.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:20:30 +0000, GB
wrote:

On 03/03/2017 11:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/03/2017 09:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

Basically, I think what they refer to is that you can now cut the
offending branches and as long as you chuck all the cuttings over the
other side, then that is fine.
I was told this is basically a safety issue. IE if you are in danger
due to a possible falling tree, you can take direct action.

You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.


Even if it has a TPO on it?

It's also a problem if in a conservation area.

And anywhere near a railway line ... and the 'throwing stuff over the
fence' (Point 8 below). I think there are some pretty strict rules
(and consequences / fines) for working on anything near a track in
case of the obvious.

So as per the OP's fears ...

"1. No persons, plant or machine should be positioned in such away
that in the event of accident or failure the plant / machine can
fall/encroach within 3m of the operation line if this cannot be
complied with then a line blockage will be required.

2. Due to the encroachment/overhang of the trees Network Rail will
require to arrange line blockage protection whilst the works take
place.

3. Network Rail are supervise all tree cutting works, no work is to
take place without the Network Rail Site Supervisors authority.

4. Network Rail require that you to submit a site specific method
statement, with risk assessments aimed at identifying risk with
respect to operational railway lines. These documents are to be vetted
and accepted, with respect to the safety and impact of the works on
Network Rail’s infrastructure. Please include emergency contacts for
all subcontractors within the method statement, including a route to
the nearest 24hr A&E department. A cover sheet must be provided with
each Method Statement submission to include three signatures; Author,
Checker. Each method statement must have a unique number and have a
document control reference number. No work should commence on site
until Network Rail have issued a letter of non objection to the method
of working. Please allow a minimum of 20 days for the acceptance of
the method statement. All method statements shall be accepted a
minimum of 10 days prior to the works starting on site.

5. A Track Visitors Permit (TVP) will be required if the workers are
required to come within 3m of the track. The application for a TVP has
to be filled in 72hrs before the works, a simple self medical form
needs to be completed and each person need to provide their; name,
D.O.B., address and national insurance number. Any person requiring a
TVP will be required to provide and wear a blue safety helmet when on
Network Rail property. There is a limit of 12 TVP’s per person in a
rolling year. A Network Rail representative can have a maximum of 3
TVP holders on track at any one time, if more TVP holders are required
Network Rail will have to provide further supervision. For further
details please see Network Rail’s company standard NR/L2/OHS/020.

6. Please be aware that it is now a Network Rail requirement that when
working on Network Rail property all personnel must now wear; ankle
support foot wear (rigger boots are not permitted), a hard hat (blue
if TVP required, white if not), Network Rail approved orange hi viz,
including hi viz trousers and task specific gloves, eye protection.

7. All personnel working on the site must undergo a railway site
safety brief to include how to stop trains in the event of an
emergency, this is to be conducted by the Network Rail representative.

8. On completion all felled tree parts which could potential be thrown
onto the railway must be removed from site."

Cheers, T i m

On 03/03/2017 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.

Would that be part of the branch that overhangs, or the whole branch?

Just the bit that overhangs your property. Rather obviously.

It may be obvious to you but I'm sure there are some green fingered
experts who will say more damage is done to a tree is part of a branch
is removed rather than the whole.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/03/2017 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.

Would that be part of the branch that overhangs, or the whole branch?

Just the bit that overhangs your property. Rather obviously.

It may be obvious to you but I'm sure there are some green fingered
experts who will say more damage is done to a tree is part of a branch
is removed rather than the whole.

Not your problem since it's not your tree. People who plant trees in their
garden for 'privacy' or whatever can be a PITA - blocking out light to
other's gardens.

--
*A day without sunshine is like... night.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Fredxxx
scribeth thus
On 03/03/2017 09:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

Basically, I think what they refer to is that you can now cut the
offending branches and as long as you chuck all the cuttings over the
other side, then that is fine.
I was told this is basically a safety issue. IE if you are in danger
due to a possible falling tree, you can take direct action.

You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.

Would that be part of the branch that overhangs, or the whole branch?


Chuck it onto the branch line rather than the main..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , T i m
scribeth thus
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:20:30 +0000, GB
wrote:

On 03/03/2017 11:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/03/2017 09:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

Basically, I think what they refer to is that you can now cut the
offending branches and as long as you chuck all the cuttings over the
other side, then that is fine.
I was told this is basically a safety issue. IE if you are in danger
due to a possible falling tree, you can take direct action.

You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.


Even if it has a TPO on it?

It's also a problem if in a conservation area.

And anywhere near a railway line ... and the 'throwing stuff over the
fence' (Point 8 below). I think there are some pretty strict rules
(and consequences / fines) for working on anything near a track in
case of the obvious.

So as per the OP's fears ...

"1. No persons, plant or machine should be positioned in such away
that in the event of accident or failure the plant / machine can
fall/encroach within 3m of the operation line if this cannot be
complied with then a line blockage will be required.

2. Due to the encroachment/overhang of the trees Network Rail will
require to arrange line blockage protection whilst the works take
place.

3. Network Rail are supervise all tree cutting works, no work is to
take place without the Network Rail Site Supervisors authority.

4. Network Rail require that you to submit a site specific method
statement, with risk assessments aimed at identifying risk with
respect to operational railway lines. These documents are to be vetted
and accepted, with respect to the safety and impact of the works on
Network Rails infrastructure. Please include emergency contacts for
all subcontractors within the method statement, including a route to
the nearest 24hr A&E department. A cover sheet must be provided with
each Method Statement submission to include three signatures; Author,
Checker. Each method statement must have a unique number and have a
document control reference number. No work should commence on site
until Network Rail have issued a letter of non objection to the method
of working. Please allow a minimum of 20 days for the acceptance of
the method statement. All method statements shall be accepted a
minimum of 10 days prior to the works starting on site.

5. A Track Visitors Permit (TVP) will be required if the workers are
required to come within 3m of the track. The application for a TVP has
to be filled in 72hrs before the works, a simple self medical form
needs to be completed and each person need to provide their; name,
D.O.B., address and national insurance number. Any person requiring a
TVP will be required to provide and wear a blue safety helmet when on
Network Rail property. There is a limit of 12 TVPs per person in a
rolling year. A Network Rail representative can have a maximum of 3
TVP holders on track at any one time, if more TVP holders are required
Network Rail will have to provide further supervision. For further
details please see Network Rails company standard NR/L2/OHS/020.

6. Please be aware that it is now a Network Rail requirement that when
working on Network Rail property all personnel must now wear; ankle
support foot wear (rigger boots are not permitted), a hard hat (blue
if TVP required, white if not), Network Rail approved orange hi viz,
including hi viz trousers and task specific gloves, eye protection.

7. All personnel working on the site must undergo a railway site
safety brief to include how to stop trains in the event of an
emergency, this is to be conducted by the Network Rail representative.

8. On completion all felled tree parts which could potential be thrown
onto the railway must be removed from site."

Cheers, T i m

Missed out working on overhead lines there somewhere
--
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:01:15 +0000, T i m wrote:

You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.


Even if it has a TPO on it?

It's also a problem if in a conservation area.

And anywhere near a railway line ... and the 'throwing stuff over the
fence' (Point 8 below). I think there are some pretty strict rules
(and consequences / fines) for working on anything near a track in
case of the obvious.

Thank you for all the info - I'll see if I can e-mail it to next door.

No fears re. the line - it's about 15m away, about 8m higher up and the
branches are at 90 deg. to the line.
It would be a rather serious mistake to block the West Coast main line!

Access isn't easy from this side, as it's over a stream that has about a
1.5m bank this side (it's a low bank on the other side).
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 11:39:20 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 03/03/2017 09:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

Basically, I think what they refer to is that you can now cut the
offending branches and as long as you chuck all the cuttings over the
other side, then that is fine.
I was told this is basically a safety issue. IE if you are in danger
due to a possible falling tree, you can take direct action.

You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.


Even if it has a TPO on it?

Pass.

This is a 'protected' sweet chestnut, but, according to Network Rail, it's
permissible to cut it if it poses a danger to people/property.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 09:08:56 +0000, PeterC
wrote:

No fears re. the line - it's about 15m away,

Then it is not "on or near the line" and no Personal Track Safety
competency is required but if work takes place on NR land a "Safe
System of Work must be in place and approved by NR.

AJH

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 09:10:34 +0000, PeterC
wrote:

This is a 'protected' sweet chestnut, but, according to Network Rail, it's
permissible to cut it if it poses a danger to people/property.

I'd check on the interpretation of posing a danger. It would become
the landowner's responsibility to take action not the neighbour but
the neighbour could apply for permission to cut back to boundary which
would normally be refused if the tree is subject of a preservation
order.

AJH

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 09:08:56 +0000, PeterC
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:01:15 +0000, T i m wrote:

You can cut away any branch that overhangs the property line.


Even if it has a TPO on it?

It's also a problem if in a conservation area.

And anywhere near a railway line ... and the 'throwing stuff over the
fence' (Point 8 below). I think there are some pretty strict rules
(and consequences / fines) for working on anything near a track in
case of the obvious.

Thank you for all the info -

np

I'll see if I can e-mail it to next door.

No fears re. the line - it's about 15m away, about 8m higher up and the
branches are at 90 deg. to the line.
It would be a rather serious mistake to block the West Coast main line!

Quite. Daughters ex is a Tree Surgeon and now Arb Trainer and did some
work with / for BR. All the stuff you read about re what they require
(as this wasn't actually anywhere near the line / HV cables) was true.
Safety meetings with all involved at the beginning of the day / shift
/ job, the right colour and type of HiViz to be worn at all times, the
correct grade of PPE to be worn and copies of relevant certificates to
be presented etc.

Access isn't easy from this side, as it's over a stream that has about a
1.5m bank this side (it's a low bank on the other side).

I think with the likes of the railways (or roads / airports etc) the
onus / assumption is that *everything* you do that involves *anything*
to do with them and their property has to be done by the book+.

That's not to say you can't 'get away' with all sorts of stuff, it's
just you probably don't what to be that person when you don't.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Nephew is taking his Air Traffic Controllers exams and was saying
how quickly people in those roles get suspended 'Pending
investigation' even when something was seen to have not been done to
book, let alone went wrong etc. If everything turns out to be 'ok' you
get reinstated and at the other end of the scale you could in up in
the clink. ;-(

wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 09:10:34 +0000, PeterC
wrote:

This is a 'protected' sweet chestnut, but, according to Network Rail, it's
permissible to cut it if it poses a danger to people/property.

I'd check on the interpretation of posing a danger. It would become
the landowner's responsibility to take action not the neighbour but
the neighbour could apply for permission to cut back to boundary which
would normally be refused if the tree is subject of a preservation
order.

AJH

Simplest would be to obtain a tree surgeon's report that the overhanging
branches posed a danger. Perhaps the same person as is hired to remove
them. Saying the whole tree posed a danger might involve one in a
pointless dispute with the tree's owner.

--

Roger Hayter

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:03:51 +0000, T i m wrote:

Access isn't easy from this side, as it's over a stream that has about a
1.5m bank this side (it's a low bank on the other side).

I think with the likes of the railways (or roads / airports etc) the
onus / assumption is that *everything* you do that involves *anything*
to do with them and their property has to be done by the book+.

That's not to say you can't 'get away' with all sorts of stuff, it's
just you probably don't what to be that person when you don't.

It will all be done from outside BR's fence and out of sight of the road, so
a good chance of 'getting away' with it ;-)
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 14:05:08 +0000, wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 09:10:34 +0000, PeterC
wrote:

This is a 'protected' sweet chestnut, but, according to Network Rail, it's
permissible to cut it if it poses a danger to people/property.

I'd check on the interpretation of posing a danger. It would become
the landowner's responsibility to take action not the neighbour but
the neighbour could apply for permission to cut back to boundary which
would normally be refused if the tree is subject of a preservation
order.

AJH

Well, if the biggest bough comes down it'll smash through the house, no
trouble!
There's no difference between it eventually falling and it being cut off,
except that there'll be less damage to the tree if it's cut.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 20:14:30 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 09:10:34 +0000, PeterC
wrote:

This is a 'protected' sweet chestnut, but, according to Network Rail, it's
permissible to cut it if it poses a danger to people/property.

I'd check on the interpretation of posing a danger. It would become
the landowner's responsibility to take action not the neighbour but
the neighbour could apply for permission to cut back to boundary which
would normally be refused if the tree is subject of a preservation
order.

AJH

Simplest would be to obtain a tree surgeon's report that the overhanging
branches posed a danger. Perhaps the same person as is hired to remove
them. Saying the whole tree posed a danger might involve one in a
pointless dispute with the tree's owner.

Good point, thanks.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:30:32 +0000, PeterC
wrote:


Well, if the biggest bough comes down it'll smash through the house, no
trouble!

That possibility does not mean the hazard is imminent and a 5 day
notice would be required by the LA in any case.
AJH

..
line!

Quite. Daughters ex is a Tree Surgeon and now Arb Trainer and did some
work with / for BR. All the stuff you read about re what they require
(as this wasn't actually anywhere near the line / HV cables) was true.
Safety meetings with all involved at the beginning of the day / shift
/ job, the right colour and type of HiViz to be worn at all times, the
correct grade of PPE to be worn and copies of relevant certificates to
be presented etc.

Access isn't easy from this side, as it's over a stream that has about a
1.5m bank this side (it's a low bank on the other side).

I think with the likes of the railways (or roads / airports etc) the
onus / assumption is that *everything* you do that involves *anything*
to do with them and their property has to be done by the book+.

Indeed it does as witness every few months or so someone gets in a near
miss with a train...

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...hment_data/fil
e/596266/D062017_170306_Surbiton.pdf


That's not to say you can't 'get away' with all sorts of stuff, it's
just you probably don't what to be that person when you don't.

Nope, not a good thing arguing with a few hundred tons of fast moving
metal..

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Nephew is taking his Air Traffic Controllers exams and was saying
how quickly people in those roles get suspended 'Pending
investigation' even when something was seen to have not been done to
book, let alone went wrong etc. If everything turns out to be 'ok' you
get reinstated and at the other end of the scale you could in up in
the clink. ;-(


I read its one of the most stressful jobs around;!

--
Tony Sayer

Sorry - top posting to save scrolling.

Spoke to neighbour today. He's had a chap from Network Rail come to look at
the trees. Full agreement that they need cutting bak /and/ that they're NR's
responsibility.
One might have to be taken right down as it appears to have some rot in the
centre.
Also, there's an area that we know was BRs once - it was rented by a local
man for hens - and that hasn't been fenced, so if kids get in and are
injured in some way...
Seems that the original 'advice' from NR was BS - apprently the original
contact is well known for wriggling out of doing anything.

I'll pass on pertinent advice from this thread by e-mail so that it's
available to him.
I'll also give any 'interesting' updates.

Thanks all.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:42:54 +0000, PeterC wrote:

Next door has 2 large boughs overhaning his garden and a bit over the house;
the whole tree is 'out of balance'.
He's been on to Network Rail for about 3 years, trying to get the boughs
removed and has been fobbed off with various excuses.

On his last call, this week, he was told that the overhanging part is now
his responsibility, due to a change about a year ago. A 'friendly' solicitor
told him the same thing. Is this correct?

It seems to be a case of punishing the victim to protect the guilty; it also
raises several issues.
Getting permission to go onto the property - Railway; awkward neighbour.
Liability if it comes down - both to ones own property and third party
injury.

What if a bough came down and did damage/injury on the highway? Could happen
in some circumstances.

It seems to ludicrous I can believe it!


--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:36:11 +0000, PeterC wrote:

Well, after NR had been for the second time and agreed that Something Must
Be Done, 2 or 3 men turned up and took down the entire bough and some other
bits, including from adjacent trees.
From what next dorr said, a lot more might need doing so possibly they'll be
back after the leaves have fallen.
At least there aren't a few tons of wood hanging over his property.

Sorry - top posting to save scrolling.

Spoke to neighbour today. He's had a chap from Network Rail come to look at
the trees. Full agreement that they need cutting bak /and/ that they're NR's
responsibility.
One might have to be taken right down as it appears to have some rot in the
centre.
Also, there's an area that we know was BRs once - it was rented by a local
man for hens - and that hasn't been fenced, so if kids get in and are
injured in some way...
Seems that the original 'advice' from NR was BS - apprently the original
contact is well known for wriggling out of doing anything.

I'll pass on pertinent advice from this thread by e-mail so that it's
available to him.
I'll also give any 'interesting' updates.

Thanks all.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:42:54 +0000, PeterC wrote:

Next door has 2 large boughs overhaning his garden and a bit over the house;
the whole tree is 'out of balance'.
He's been on to Network Rail for about 3 years, trying to get the boughs
removed and has been fobbed off with various excuses.

On his last call, this week, he was told that the overhanging part is now
his responsibility, due to a change about a year ago. A 'friendly' solicitor
told him the same thing. Is this correct?

It seems to be a case of punishing the victim to protect the guilty; it also
raises several issues.
Getting permission to go onto the property - Railway; awkward neighbour.
Liability if it comes down - both to ones own property and third party
injury.

What if a bough came down and did damage/injury on the highway? Could happen
in some circumstances.

It seems to ludicrous I can believe it!


--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway