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?

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

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

"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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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