A quick question - when hedges are cut against public roads, is anyone legally responsible for clearing up the trimmings? The only bit I can find is in the Highways Act 1980 which has the following prosaically worded section:
Section 149. Removal of things so deposited on highways as to be a nuisance, etc. (1) If any thing is so deposited on a highway as to constitute a nuisance, the Highway Authority for the highway may by notice require the person who deposited it there to remove it forthwith and if he fails to comply with the notice the authority may make a complaint to a magistrates' court for a removal and disposal order under this section.
This isn't actually for my local council (who are generally not too bad), but my mother (North Kesteven, Lincs) is being told by her council that they can't do anything about a farmer leaving hedge trimmings all over a public road. Sustrans are saying the same thing about hedge cuttings on their cycle path, but that presumably isn't a public highway.
The fact that I had a visit from the p*nct*ure fairy on Friday is purely coincidental!
Section 149. Removal of things so deposited on highways as to be a nuisance, etc. (1) If any thing is so deposited on a highway as to constitute a nuisance, the Highway Authority for the highway may by notice require the person who deposited it there to remove it forthwith and if he fails to comply with the notice the authority may make a complaint to a magistrates' court for a removal and disposal order under this section.
Which surely raises a flag Health and Safety - wise; I think letters should be considered on the point. (sorry!)
-- Charles Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park LCC; CTC.
"Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
A quick question - when hedges are cut against public roads, is anyone legally responsible for clearing up the trimmings? The only bit I can find is in the Highways Act 1980 which has the following prosaically worded section:
The topic cropped up elsewhere and essentially it appears that the depositor is required to clean up the mess. It isn't however practical to insist that every last thorn is removed from the highway.
The topic cropped up elsewhere and essentially it appears that the depositor is required to clean up the mess. It isn't however practical to insist that every last thorn is removed from the highway.
Is this a legal requirement though? Is it the council's responsibility to enforce it on a public highway? In this case, it isn't every last thorn but simply no clearing at all.
Paul Boyd <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting
Quoted message said:
On 18/11/2007 18:29, vernon said,
Quoted message said:
The topic cropped up elsewhere and essentially it appears that the depositor is required to clean up the mess. It isn't however practical to insist that every last thorn is removed from the highway.
Is this a legal requirement though? Is it the council's responsibility to enforce it on a public highway? In this case, it isn't every last thorn but simply no clearing at all.
I suspect the debris will have been pulverised by passing traffic before the magistrates get round to hearing the complaint, never mind whatever period they'd have to give the farmer to comply.
-- Sue ]🙁🙂
Why aren't we demanding regular retests for motor drivers? It's obvious a lot of them would fail so that'd solve the congestion problem too.
"vernon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
A quick question - when hedges are cut against public roads, is anyone legally responsible for clearing up the trimmings? The only bit I can find is in the Highways Act 1980 which has the following prosaically worded section:
The topic cropped up elsewhere and essentially it appears that the depositor is required to clean up the mess. It isn't however practical to insist that every last thorn is removed from the highway.
There was a case some time back, where a club ruin had a high number of punctures in a short distance, due to the hedge trimming carried out by a farmer. The club instructed a solicitor to draught a letter, but got no response. After that, it was a quick trip to the small claims court, which imposed charges for damages, solicitor's costs and penalties for not responding to the solicitor's letter.
"Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
A quick question - when hedges are cut against public roads, is anyone legally responsible for clearing up the trimmings? The only bit I can find is in the Highways Act 1980 which has the following prosaically worded section:
Section 149. Removal of things so deposited on highways as to be a nuisance, etc. (1) If any thing is so deposited on a highway as to constitute a nuisance, the Highway Authority for the highway may by notice require the person who deposited it there to remove it forthwith and if he fails to comply with the notice the authority may make a complaint to a magistrates' court for a removal and disposal order under this section.
This isn't actually for my local council (who are generally not too bad), but my mother (North Kesteven, Lincs) is being told by her council that they can't do anything about a farmer leaving hedge trimmings all over a public road. Sustrans are saying the same thing about hedge cuttings on their cycle path, but that presumably isn't a public highway.
As long as I can remember, we've always cleaned up mud left on the road by our tractor due to some law or another. I'd suspect hedge clippings came under the same category.
"David Lloyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"vernon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
A quick question - when hedges are cut against public roads, is anyone legally responsible for clearing up the trimmings? The only bit I can find is in the Highways Act 1980 which has the following prosaically worded section:
The topic cropped up elsewhere and essentially it appears that the depositor is required to clean up the mess. It isn't however practical to insist that every last thorn is removed from the highway.
There was a case some time back, where a club ruin had a high number of punctures in a short distance, due to the hedge trimming carried out by a farmer. The club instructed a solicitor to draught a letter, but got no response. After that, it was a quick trip to the small claims court, which imposed charges for damages, solicitor's costs and penalties for not responding to the solicitor's letter.
David Lloyd
Solicitor's letters are great but not necessary. Simply send the culprit a reasonable bill for damage and inconvenience caused by negligence, with a para to the effect that non payment will lead to small claims proceedings, and most will pay (particularly if they speak to _their_ solicitor).
"vernon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >A quick question - when hedges are cut against public roads, is anyone >legally responsible for clearing up the trimmings? The only bit I can >find is in the Highways Act 1980 which has the following prosaically >worded section:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The topic cropped up elsewhere and essentially it appears that the depositor is required to clean up the mess. It isn't however practical to insist that every last thorn is removed from the highway.
Quoted message said:
There was a case some time back, where a club ruin had a high number of punctures in a short distance, due to the hedge trimming carried out by a farmer. The club instructed a solicitor to draught a letter, but got no response. After that, it was a quick trip to the small claims court, which imposed charges for damages, solicitor's costs and penalties for not responding to the solicitor's letter.
Quoted message said:
David Lloyd
Solicitor's letters are great but not necessary. Simply send the culprit a reasonable bill for damage and inconvenience caused by negligence, with a para to the effect that non payment will lead to small claims proceedings, and most will pay (particularly if they speak to _their_ solicitor).
That was probably how it was - my memory is a bit foggy with time.
"David Lloyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On 19 Nov, 08:10, "Budstaff" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
"David Lloyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"vernon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
> "Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >>A quick question - when hedges are cut against public roads, is anyone >>legally responsible for clearing up the trimmings? The only bit I can >>find is in the Highways Act 1980 which has the following prosaically >>worded section:
Quoted message said:
> The topic cropped up elsewhere and essentially it appears that the > depositor is required to clean up the mess. It isn't however > practical > to insist that every last thorn is removed from the highway.
Quoted message said:
There was a case some time back, where a club ruin had a high number of punctures in a short distance, due to the hedge trimming carried out by a farmer. The club instructed a solicitor to draught a letter, but got no response. After that, it was a quick trip to the small claims court, which imposed charges for damages, solicitor's costs and penalties for not responding to the solicitor's letter.
Quoted message said:
David Lloyd
Solicitor's letters are great but not necessary. Simply send the culprit a reasonable bill for damage and inconvenience caused by negligence, with a para to the effect that non payment will lead to small claims proceedings, and most will pay (particularly if they speak to _their_ solicitor).
That was probably how it was - my memory is a bit foggy with time.
David Lloyd (at work)
Ok, so I get a couple of punctures. I write a letter claiming reasonable recompense say £3 for an inner tube or £6 for the pair as I just might need to use the two spares that I normally carry. I'm not sure that the subsequent cost wrt time and postage costs makes it a worthwhile endeavour. I'm sure that a small claims court would not entertain a £6 claim. A club sized class action might be worth persuing but I think that it's a non starter for the individual.
> David Lloyd Solicitor's letters are great but not necessary. Simply send the culprit a reasonable bill for damage and inconvenience caused by negligence, with a para to the effect that non payment will lead to small claims proceedings, and most will pay (particularly if they speak to _their_ solicitor).
That was probably how it was - my memory is a bit foggy with time.
David Lloyd (at work)
Ok, so I get a couple of punctures. I write a letter claiming reasonable recompense say £3 for an inner tube or £6 for the pair as I just might need to use the two spares that I normally carry. I'm not sure that the subsequent cost wrt time and postage costs makes it a worthwhile endeavour. I'm sure that a small claims court would not entertain a £6 claim. A club sized class action might be worth persuing but I think that it's a non starter for the individual.
£6 for the tubes, plus the time it took you to change them, the time it took you to repair punctures or the time it took you to purchase the new ones, the time it's taken you to record all the above, the time it takes you to make out the invoice, the time it takes to post invoice, postal costs...
"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
vernon said:
Quoted message said:
>> David Lloyd > Solicitor's letters are great but not necessary. Simply send the > culprit a > reasonable bill for damage and inconvenience caused by negligence, with > a > para to the effect that non payment will lead to small claims > proceedings, > and most will pay (particularly if they speak to _their_ solicitor). That was probably how it was - my memory is a bit foggy with time.
David Lloyd (at work)
Ok, so I get a couple of punctures. I write a letter claiming reasonable recompense say £3 for an inner tube or £6 for the pair as I just might need to use the two spares that I normally carry. I'm not sure that the subsequent cost wrt time and postage costs makes it a worthwhile endeavour. I'm sure that a small claims court would not entertain a £6 claim. A club sized class action might be worth persuing but I think that it's a non starter for the individual.
£6 for the tubes, plus the time it took you to change them, the time it took you to repair punctures or the time it took you to purchase the new ones, the time it's taken you to record all the above, the time it takes you to make out the invoice, the time it takes to post invoice, postal costs...
"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
vernon said:
>>> David Lloyd >> Solicitor's letters are great but not necessary. Simply send the >> culprit a >> reasonable bill for damage and inconvenience caused by negligence, with >> a >> para to the effect that non payment will lead to small claims >> proceedings, >> and most will pay (particularly if they speak to _their_ solicitor). > That was probably how it was - my memory is a bit foggy with time. > > David Lloyd (at work) Ok, so I get a couple of punctures. I write a letter claiming reasonable recompense say £3 for an inner tube or £6 for the pair as I just might need to use the two spares that I normally carry. I'm not sure that the subsequent cost wrt time and postage costs makes it a worthwhile endeavour. I'm sure that a small claims court would not entertain a £6 claim. A club sized class action might be worth persuing but I think that it's a non starter for the individual.
£6 for the tubes, plus the time it took you to change them, the time it took you to repair punctures or the time it took you to purchase the new ones, the time it's taken you to record all the above, the time it takes you to make out the invoice, the time it takes to post invoice, postal costs...
"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
vernon said:
"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
vernon wrote:
>>>> David Lloyd >>> Solicitor's letters are great but not necessary. Simply send the >>> culprit a >>> reasonable bill for damage and inconvenience caused by negligence, >>> with a >>> para to the effect that non payment will lead to small claims >>> proceedings, >>> and most will pay (particularly if they speak to _their_ solicitor). >> That was probably how it was - my memory is a bit foggy with time. >> >> David Lloyd (at work) > Ok, so I get a couple of punctures. I write a letter claiming > reasonable recompense say £3 for an inner tube or £6 for the pair as I > just might need to use the two spares that I normally carry. I'm not > sure that the subsequent cost wrt time and postage costs makes it a > worthwhile endeavour. I'm sure that a small claims court would not > entertain a £6 claim. A club sized class action might be worth > persuing but I think that it's a non starter for the individual.
£6 for the tubes, plus the time it took you to change them, the time it took you to repair punctures or the time it took you to purchase the new ones, the time it's taken you to record all the above, the time it takes you to make out the invoice, the time it takes to post invoice, postal costs...
So that brings it to £10.....
Your time is remarkably cheap.
You'd be amazed at what I'd do for a packet of Jaffa cakes ;-)
