I'm justt soooo staggered that I had to share this with someone.
We bought a house next to a railway line and had a vague indication where the boundary was (not accurately defined in the UK house purchase, unlike US) so I asked the railway to come out to tell me the correct line so that I could put up a child-proof fence. I thought my boundary was about 30 feet from the line. Bloke came round this morning and we discussed the situation like 2 grown adults. The result is that he has approved me putting a fence up right at the furthest edge that safety permits, about 10 feet from the line AND will provide the fence posts AND 150 metres of wire AND will send me some more if I want it AND will allow me to officially take ownership of it AND will supply some labour to come round and lop off any branches that are in the way. In return, I have to stick the poles in the ground and nail the wires on.
I've just gained about 1/5 acre of land for the cost of a phonecall.
A practical solution from a large company?? Who would ever believe it!
They give you the "upper" limit of the boundary and that means you have to do all the work they should do on land they should be doing the same on. Costs them less money, you see, and they don't live in the realm of "long term".
You are now responsible for EVERYTHING to do with that "border", and so is anyone who buys your property should you decide to sell.
I was already responsible for a border but this one is much nicer.
They've merely moved my responsibility 20 feet further down.
that means you have to do all the work they should do on land they should be doing the same on. Costs them less money
I checked. They weren't under any obligation to do anything so they haven't dodged any work or responsibilities with regards a fence. He was working a Saturday because they have a huge backlog of work, mostly dealing with complaints and people trying to steal 20 feet deep sections of railway land. Maybe my honest approach was enough of a novelty to make him feel generous? I had told them that I didn't want the land, just an indication of where I could legally erect a fence.
Yeah, blue, but now your "border" is within 3m of the actual rail line. They don't have to make sure that area is "clear" of overgrowth, they don't have to make sure that there is a "childproof fence", etc, that's now up to you.
So you got a bit extra ground for what, exactly, bearing in mind that some people in the future, should you decide to sell, will not be happy about complying with the rules you have agreed to.......
Unless I could see the actual agreement, I reckon you been sold a pup.
I could be wrong here, but I believe that it is the railway company's statutory duty to maintain a fence between their property and the rest of the world. They are getting some financial relief from doing all of that: it's even possible they get some council tax relief for having less land.
Doesn't sound that bad a deal to me. Depends on what the paperwork says, though.
Location: A Whilom nimble brain. With 31 million posts.
I'd fence it in a bit sharpish and make obvious use of the land. Wait however-many years before claiming it officially . . . unless of course your have a bill of sale. Trying to make it official at this stage might however backfire on you. I'd wait.
Off topic somewhat, but talking of fencing our railways. That bloke that went off the road and down onto a railway line went to jail. They really went to town on him because he was proven to be tired. I felt this was really unfair.
He was guilty of several things, but causing a train to smash to pieces should not have been one of them.
Be careful about the fencing and associated detritus. Don't want yer best hammer - the one that went missing years ago - being flicked into the works of a passing royal coach.
Last edited by Loose rivets; 18th Aug 2012 at 17:44.
That bloke that went off the road and down onto a railway line went to jail. They really went to town on him because he was proven to be tired. I felt this was really unfair.
In defence of the decision, there have been studies that have shown that being "tired" is actually WORSE than being DUI as a newt. And he did lose control of his vehicle when he could have stopped because he was knackered.
He continued driving, and lost control even though HE knew he was "impaired" due to being knackered. His fault, the jail sentence was just as HE could have prevented the accident by doing the simple thing called stopping and resting.
100% his fault, and if you drive or fly in that condition on a regular basis I hope you don't take anyone with you.
A local property is for sale. The house part is on three (or four?) floors and the 'garden' extends for several hundred metres, although part of it is steep (and terraced), the remainder is populated by substantial mature trees (at least one of which is dead). The owner will have to face up to the responsibility of managing these trees (which overhang neighbouring houses).
Another neighbouring property owner is felling most of the trees (even though it's a conservation area) and using the logs as fuel.
Trees are very nice (I like them and preserve them) but they need to be managed least they become out of hand, when they can become a liability.
Further to the driving off the road conviction, individuals doing this are putting legitimate firms out of business who do have to observe safe hours. The rise in cars full of people being crushed by sleeping truckers is precisely because there is not enough enforcement.
Councils enforcing taxi driver laws would help too.