Category Archives: Legal Issues

Hedge Cutting

Legal Obligation for Hedge Debris

Hedge Cutting

Hedge cutting in Hardwick Lane © Michael Trolove

“How can a person encourage or force a landowner to meet their legal obligation to clear up hedge debris from public roads?” Robin Sheppard, Cowbridge, South Glamorgan”

The legal obligation on landowners to clear up hedges can be found in section 154 of the Highways Act 1980. As an aside, all references below to hedges also apply in relation to trees and shrubs. Where a hedge overhangs a highway or any other road to which the public has access to so as to: ‘endanger or obstruct the passage of vehicles or pedestrians’, or ‘obstruct or interfere with the view of drivers of vehicles or the light from a public lamp’, or ‘overhangs a highway so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of horse riders’, the local council may, by notice either to the owner of the hedge or to the occupier of the land on which it is growing, require him to within 14 days from the date of service of the notice to cut it so as to remove the cause of the danger, obstruction or interference.

A person aggrieved by any such requirement may appeal to a Magistrates court. Subject to any appeal, if a person on whom a notice is served fails to comply with it within the specified period the council may carry out the work required by the notice and recover the expenses reasonably incurred in so doing from the person in default.

If an ordinary member of the public wishes to make a complaint to the council in order to enforce the obligations of the landowner under the Highways Act 1980, then that person simply needs to call the council to register the complaint.The council will then send a Street Enforcement Officer who will serve the notice on the landowner.

Where the landowner fails to clear up hedge debris from a public road, an aggrieved person may be able to bring a claim for public nuisance. A nuisance can generally be defined as an act or omission which endangers the life, health or property of the public. The nuisance must materially affect a class of people who come within the sphere of the nuisance. It is not necessary to prove that every member of the class has been injured or affected. It is only a civil wrong and actionable as such when a private individual has suffered particular damage over and above the general inconvenience and injury suffered by the public. For example, a punctured tyre caused by the debris.

These days environmental legislation has made this remedy probably less useful than it once was. It does remain useful however where the injured party requires compensatory damages or where the public agency is not prepared to take action. However, enforcement of duties under legislative provisions is for the most part the concern of local authorities and other public agencies. In which case, if a landowner has neglected his duties and failed to clear up debris from his hedge, the first port of call should be the local council who will send round a Street Enforcement Officer who will serve notice on the landowner.
Judge Jefferies

Your legal enquiries are answered by Russell Jones & Walker, Solicitors – the best national firm servicing the needs of individual people, with branches throughout the UK. 

A to B 49 – Aug 2005

Loading

Train seat reservations & industrial action

The road from A to B can be strewn with legal hurdles. Send your queries to Russell Jones & Walker, Solicitors, c/o A to B magazine

EXHIBIT A: “A few weeks ago I arrived at Birmingham New Street station to catch a Virgin Cross-Country train home after a hard day’s work. At 6pm, the train was packed, but I was lucky enough to find an un-booked seat at a table with three other commuters from Birmingham. At the next stop, a group of girls got on and said they had reserved our seats. Sure enough they had reservation tickets with our coach and seat numbers on, but the electronic seat displays still very clearly said that our seats were not booked. When we refused to move, the guard gave the girls complimentary First Class seats, but who was in the right?”

William Johnson, Banbury

EDITOR’S NOTE: Unlike other systems,Virgin’s at-seat electronic display is updated by satellite while the train is underway. According to staff we’ve spoken to, it ‘often goes wrong’.

Fortunately it appears that everyone affected by this mix-up managed to get a seat and did not have to stand for the entire length of the journey.

A ticket with a seat number gives no more guarantee of a seat than an ordinary ticket.Virgin says that where a person does have a seat reservation, but that seat has not been reserved for them, they will issue some form of compensation to the inconvenienced passenger, provided the passenger retains their ticket.Virgin regard the seat reservation service as a complimentary service but does not consider their passengers to be entitled to those seats, even when the seat has been reserved.

Point 3.3 of Virgin’s Passenger’s Charter states the following:

“If, for any reason, we cannot honour your seat reservation, we will try to find you another seat on the train. If this is not possible and you have to stand for more than fifteen minutes of the journey, we will give you National Rail vouchers to the value of 5% or more of the price paid for that journey which you can use when you make a future train journey.”

So whilst they do not guarantee to give you the seat that you specifically booked, they do promise to make every effort to provide you with a seat of some kind when a reservation has been made.You were therefore right not to move from your seat. Since the seat did not give any indication of the reservation, you were entitled to sit in what you believed to be an unreserved seat.

EXHIBIT B: “Earlier this year we were due to travel by Scotrail Sleeper to Fort William. At 4pm on the day before we were due to travel, we got a phone call to say there would be no service because of a guard’s strike. It was quite an upsetting experience having to sort out other travel arrangements for us all: me (six months pregnant), my husband, and our five-year-old daughter.

In the event, we had to buy extra train tickets and stay an extra night in a b&b, or we would have lost our entire holiday. On our return we wrote to Scotrail to see if we could reclaim the extra expenses – a total of £82.50. Scotrail said they were not liable for disruption caused by industrial action. Is this right?”

Allison Taylor, Norwich

…they would be prepared to refund you for any unused tickets… and review claims in a fair minded way…

Unfortunately it does appear that Scotrail is right. By purchasing your ticket from Scotrail you effectively agreed to their terms and conditions of travel.These terms and conditions are contained in Scotrail’s Passenger Charter, a copy of which can be found at all stations, or on the internet.The charter includes the following term:

“If the train you planned to catch is delayed or cancelled and you decide not to travel, we will give you a full refund if you return your ticket to any ticket office, if the ticket office is in a position to do so.”

I spoke to the Scotrail Customer Relations Department who said that in a situation like the one described above, they would be prepared to refund you for any unused tickets. In addition to this, Scotrail offer to do the following:

“Over and above fulfiling our obligation under our Passenger Charter, we will review claims as a result of delays, disruptions or poor service in a fair minded way.”

Although they therefore offer to review your situation, they are not required to provide any form of compensation for cancelled trains resulting from industrial action. This does not mean that you are precluded from claiming back your expenses, but it does mean that the only guarantee that you are entitled to is that your claim will be reviewed in a fair minded way. Unfortunately you are therefore unlikely to obtain the remedy that you are looking for.

Your legal enquiries are answered by Russell Jones & Walker, Solicitors – the best national firm servicing the needs of individual people, with branches in London, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield, Cardiff and Bristol. For further information call Jeremy Clarke-Williams on 020 7837 2808

Loading

Folding bikes on Airlines

Judge JefferiesThe road from A to B can be strewn with legal hurdles. Send your queries to Russell Jones & Walker, Solicitors, c/o A to B magazine

“I regularly travel overseas with a Brompton, checking the bike into the hold, but I was disturbed to find that Ryanair is now demanding payment of E25 for a fully-folded Brompton. The charge, brought in on 14th February, is described as a ‘sporting equipment’ fee. Surely if the luggage is within the weight limit and does not contain any dangerous items, the contents are your affair?” John Wilcox, Derby (our thanks to the many others who have written).

I’m afraid that the answer is not necessarily going to be one you will want to hear. It is up to the airlines what they allow onto their planes at the end of the day, but there is an expectation that they will allow reasonable luggage within their stated size/weight allowances. It is reasonable to refuse to carry luggage in order to comply with law, or if it would affect the health and safety or comfort of other passengers or crew. It is also reasonable to refuse luggage which is unsuitably packed, fragile, or contains perishables.

Most airlines permit hand luggage conforming to International Air Transport Association guideline dimensions: length 56cm, width 45cm and depth 25cm (but the sum of all three dimensions not to exceed 115cm).There is also a 5kg weight limit. Even the Brompton folding bicycle (height 56.5cm, length 54.5cm, width 25cm) is just outside the guideline dimensions, but with the lightest model weighing 11.35kg, there is an automatic excuse for every airline to refuse it as hand luggage.

Checking it into the hold is another option, but still not guaranteed.These excuses might sound feeble, but if ground staff are determined to refuse you, these are tried and tested winners: ‘It can’t travel on the conveyor belt like an ordinary suitcase/rucksack’, ‘There is a risk that staff might damage their backs handling it’, and so on.

As for Ryanair’s ‘sporting equipment’ supplement to store folding bikes in the hold, the Air Transport Users Council (who run an advice line for air passengers) have confirmed that they are entitled to charge, on the basis that since a folding bike is different to a suitcase or rucksack, it will require special handling during storing and transporting. However, they did point out that it was unusual to charge such a supplement, and more likely to occur on a charter flight. Most other leading airlines would not charge a supplement if the bike was within the overall weight allowance.

On a more positive note, my research produced accounts of people taking their folding bikes on planes with no such problems, including the marketing director of Brompton, and Simon Calder, travel correspondent for The Independent, who termed his Brompton ‘without a doubt, the best travel accessory of them all’.

The best advice is really to check-in early, before storage space becomes an issue, and to wear your brightest smiles for the ground staff.With enough charm and finesse, you might even wangle an upgrade! [See also Letters, page 11. Eds]

Your legal enquiries are answered by Russell Jones & Walker, Solicitors – the best national firm servicing the needs of individual people, with branches in London, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield, Cardiff and Bristol. For further information call Jeremy Clarke-Williams on 020 7837 2808

Loading

aphid-spingo-electric-scooter

Are electric micro-scooters legal?

aphid-spingo

The Aphid Spingo, good concept but is it legal?

I’m now worried by reports in the media that the courts are treating these machines as small motorcycles and putting points on the driving licenses of un-insured, un-taxed, un-helmeted users. Are they legal on the road, on the pavement – or as one shop told me – on cycle paths?”

David Johnson Truro, Cornwall

It is hardly surprising that there is such confusion, since the legal position certainly requires considerable clarification. Unfortunately, the current situation is far from satisfactory.

In a High Court case (CC N Yorks v Saddington, Oct 2000), a Go-Ped petrol-driven micro-scooter was found to come within the definition of a motor vehicle under Section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.This means that their use is governed by the same legislation that applies to motorcycles and mopeds, since there is no criteria for minimum power or speed output.

Since then, the Vehicle Certification Agency, responsible for approving new vehicles, has considered that electric micro-scooters are also covered by the ruling, since they are no less ‘mechanically propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads’.This was more recently confirmed in a subsequent High Court case (Letitia Water v DPP, July 2002) involving a City Bug electric model.

They are therefore deemed to be mopeds in the eyes of the law, since mopeds are the lowest powered two-wheel vehicles. However, this means they must meet the standards required for a moped to be used on the road.This will include the requirements for mirrors and lights, under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. It is therefore illegal to ride a typical fun electric micro-scooter on the road.

It is also illegal to use them on cycle paths and pavements, where mopeds are not permitted.This leads to the ridiculous situation that the only legal place to ride an electric scooter is on private property.

“…riders potentially face a £1,000 fine and 6-8 points on their driving licence…”

However, any vehicle approved under European Community Whole Type Approval can be legally used on the roads.To date only one model, the German Charly MZ, has obtained EC approval, and this can, therefore, be legally registered as a moped, and used on the roads in the UK.

In fact, trendy urban types and youngsters alike are committing a whole raft of offences when you see them scooting around in a pair of shorts in the street. All the requirements for riding a moped must be met, including a licence, registration, insurance, a tax disc, and even an MOT after three years. A crash helmet must also be worn. Chris Eubank discovered this to his cost, when he was charged for scootering round Brighton without a helmet. He received a conditional discharge and had to pay £35 in costs.

Toy manufacturers have advertised the scooters as legal provided they are only ridden by children over 14, relying on electric bike legislation, but it is clear that the Department for Transport sees things differently.

Provisions in the Transport Act 1981 state that an electric bicycle avoids being classed as a motorcycle if it weighs less than 40kg, is fitted with pedals, has a maximum power output of 200 watts and cannot be propelled at more than 15 miles per hour. But in the City Bug case, the judge ruled that the scooter was not, ‘fitted with pedals by means of which it is capable of being propelled’, and therefore the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983 would not apply.

This is clearly a grey area in the law, with many micro-scooter riders not unreasonably feeling that they are being arbitrarily restricted from engaging in harmless fun, or from adopting an environmentally-friendly transport solution.The Department for Transport has confirmed that there are no proposals to create a new category for scooters, or to adapt the electric cycle category to include them.

A further complication is that, despite defining micro-scooters as motor vehicles, the judges have so far refrained from actually categorising them, on the basis that this fell to the Department for Transport.This has made it impossible to obtain insurance since insurance companies are understandably reluctant to provide cover for vehicles which cannot comply with requirements.

As far as enforcement goes, this is obviously a matter for police forces to consider in the light of local circumstances, but warnings have been issued in a number of regions. While we often hear that ignorance of the law is no defence, it may be that in some cases ignorance really is bliss, since the police attitude has, by and large, been merely to warn riders genuinely unaware that their scooters are classified as mopeds.

But be warned! Driving without insurance is a Level Five offence, and riders potentially face a £1,000 fine and 6-8 points on their licence, if they have one. New legislation means that youngsters who have not yet qualified for a full driving licence will have these penalty points added to any future licence. And yes, police have confirmed that children will lose their licence when they’re old enough to hold one.

And that’s not all, people have been picked up for driving whilst disqualified and even drink driving, so riding one of the petrol-powered machines home from the pub could cost you your licence! The situation with electric scooters is more confused. According to The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, at least one rider has been let off with a caution by the police, who concluded that the vehicle was covered by the same archaic catch-all law that applies to cyclists: ‘people who were very unsteady on pedal cycles, vehicles propelled by foot and steam-propelled vehicles’.The Department for Transport is unable to conclude definitely, since the issue has not yet been tested in the courts, but the view is that since the scooters can be classed as mopeds, it would be inconsistent if the same drink/drive legislation did not apply. So on top of everything else, make sure you stay off the liqueur chocolates before considering a scoot.

Your legal enquiries are answered by Russell Jones & Walker, Solicitors – the best national firm servicing the needs of individual people, with branches in London, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield, Cardiff and Bristol. For further information call Jeremy Clarke-Williams on 020 7837 2808

Loading

EU Directive & Motor Insurance

The road from A to B can be strewn with legal hurdles. Send your queries to Russell Jones & Walker, Solicitors, c/o A to B magazine

“What will be the effect of the proposed EU Directive harmonising motor insurance? Apparently the technical term ‘rebuttable presumption’ is enshrined in the law in many countries – if a large vehicle hits a smaller one then the driver of the large vehicle has to prove innocence. So a lorry/car conflict would be the same as a bike/pedestrian one. Surely this a saner approach that the ‘might is right’ situation on British roads at present? However, I believe that it goes against the idea of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in our legal system?”
Roy Benson
Woking

The proposed change in British law comes as a result of a new draft European Union Directive seeking to harmonise motor insurance laws across the EU. One of the proposals is that it would compulsory for motor insurance to include cover for a victim’s injuries, whether or not the driver was at fault.This is already the law in France, Belgium, Sweden and Finland. Currently in the UK, pedestrians and cyclists are not covered by a vehicle’s insurance, unless the motorist is found liable for the accident.

If British law is changed in line with the Directive, it would only apply to accidents between motor vehicles and cyclists or motor vehicles and pedestrians.The EU feels that motor vehicles cause most accidents (as I am sure you would all agree!) and that cyclists and pedestrians are always the weaker party in any accident – the new rule would also apply to children, as pedestrians or cyclists. As for domestic animals, the Directive is surprisingly quiet! I would assume the new rule does not extend to pets.

As to whether these changes would undermine our hallowed principle of innocent until proven guilty, the situation is this.The fact that a motor vehicle has compulsory insurance to cover any victim’s injuries would have no bearing as to who was actually liable for a specific accident, if the case went to court. Furthermore, having insurance would not affect the amount of damages awarded to the victim.

If the proposed Directive is ultimately accepted, we would have until December 2004 to change our domestic law.

A to B Notelet: In the media frenzy over this proposed change to UK law, it was conveniently overlooked that the new rules would apply to children and pedestrians as well as cyclists. Should readers become involved in any future bar-room/letter page brawls on this issue, it might be worth emphasising this point. Cyclists are an easy target, but we’re all pedestrians at some stage in our daily lives and it’s hard to argue against a law designed to protect children…

Your legal enquiries are answered by Russell Jones & Walker, Solicitors – the best national firm servicing the needs of individual people, with branches in London, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield, Cardiff and Bristol. For further information call Jeremy Clarke-Williams on 020 7837 2808

Loading