No trains to call at Altnabreac for the foreseeable future

[Bletchleyite]

The next instalment of the couples barmy behaviour has just hit YouTube. Scotrail on the receiving end this time.

I'm still struggling to understand what they actually want. They don't seem to state it at any point in any of their material. The sort of undertone is that they might want paying for railway staff to access the station via their land, but even that is not clear.

 

[Rab Smith]

I'm still struggling to understand what they actually want. They don't seem to state it at any point in any of their material. The sort of undertone is that they might want paying for railway staff to access the station via their land, but even that is not clear.

For what I see, they are convinced they own the land that the Station is situated on and want to restrict access to the railway companies who have to access the area to carry out maintenance. They constantly state that they have no problem with pedestrians accessing the station via their disputed land but do have a problem with rail workers accessing for the purpose of carrying out works.
It's a bizarre situation that I think is not going to end well for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm also a bit confused why the new path was built to within the gate rather than outside it.

 

[Elwyn]

I agree. I have struggled with this too. I have watched several Youtube clips, but failed to understand everything that is alleged.

There doesn’t seem to be any dispute that the couple own the former railway station house. However they appear to believe they own some adjacent land, possibly including the operational railway platform and the solum. There are property plans available on the Land Registry website (and on this thread) that seem to indicate they don’t own all the land they claim. But that’s clearly disputed and is now a matter for the courts to decide. Which is what is happening.

Their underlying position appears to me to be that, if they do own the disputed areas, they’d like payment from National Rail for public access. Without making any judgement of the facts, the Sheriff in Wick recently made the important point that even if they do own some of disputed the land, existing rights of way might nevertheless allow access.

Clearly one for the courts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is right of way law in Scotland specific to leisure use? In England it is not; a right of way is a right of way to "pass and repass" for any purpose (including commercial) by anyone on foot, much as some organisations like the National Trust and the Milton Keynes Parks Trust don't like it and sometimes seek to pretend otherwise in order to get a cut of the takings for commercial use. It strikes me as odd unless Scotland is different why Network Rail staff would not have the same right as someone using the station.

 

[Darandio]

However they appear to believe they own some adjacent land, possibly including the operational railway platform and the solum.

Reading the comments on the new video that is exactly what they are now claiming, that they own the land on where the platform sits. They also repeatedly claim that Network Rail own 'zero' land at the location.

 

[Krokodil]

Is right of way law in Scotland specific to leisure use? In England it is not; a right of way is a right of way to "pass and repass" for any purpose (including commercial) by anyone on foot, much as some organisations like the National Trust and the Milton Keynes Parks Trust don't like it and sometimes seek to pretend otherwise in order to get a cut of the takings for commercial use. It strikes me as odd unless Scotland is different why Network Rail staff would not have the same right as someone using the station.

Perhaps remaining on the station to do work to it is different to "passing and repassing". After all, you've got the right to pass through someone's garden if a right of way exists through there, bit you wouldn't have the right to stop and have a picnic.

 

[norbitonflyer]

There can be limited rights, for example a right of access over private land for a specific purpose (such as to get to your own premises - a "shared driveway" is often like this, with the property boundary either running down the middle or on one edge, in either case with both neighbours having the right to use the entire width of the driveway and the obligation not to obstruct it).

Which raises a point - with rights come obligations - if the people who live in the station house are claiming they own the platform, that means they, and not Network Rail, are responsible for its upkeep and in particular ensuring it is kept in a state of repair that is not a hazard either to people who have legitimate business there (i.e waiting for, or alighting from, a train) or to its neighbours (in particular trains passing on the adjacent railway line). Do they really want that responsibility?

 

[38Cto15E]

Where in the passenger use table does Altnabreac come, surely near to the bottom.
How many people would it affect if there was no longer an Altnabreac Railway Station? I know it would never happen but it would save a hell of a lot of money if it was closed permanently.

 

[Adam Williams]

Where in the passenger use table does Altnabreac come, surely near to the bottom.
How many people would it affect if there was no longer an Altnabreac Railway Station? I know it would never happen but it would save a hell of a lot of money if it was closed permanently.

You've let them win if you decide to just give up and do that, sets a terrible precedent Despite living nowhere near this station, I'm happy with the expenditure as a taxpayer; it's the principle here that's important.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where in the passenger use table does Altnabreac come, surely near to the bottom.
How many people would it affect if there was no longer an Altnabreac Railway Station? I know it would never happen but it would save a hell of a lot of money if it was closed permanently.

I would reiterate my point above that in normal circumstances it would be difficult to oppose the closure of the station, however bullies must never be allowed to win even if that comes at a cost, so even if it's closed in a few years' time when all this is done with closing it now would absolutely be the wrong thing to do as it would set a very bad precedent to awkward landowners all over the country that if you don't like what the railway is doing you can just obstruct it until it gives up and withdraws.

 

[Trainbike46]

I would reiterate my point above that in normal circumstances it would be difficult to oppose the closure of the station, however bullies must never be allowed to win even if that comes at a cost, so even if it's closed in a few years' time when all this is done with closing it now would absolutely be the wrong thing to do as it would set a very bad precedent to awkward landowners all over the country that if you don't like what the railway is doing you can just obstruct it until it gives up and withdraws.

Exactly this.

I would add that, as it appears the couple in question claim they own the railway track itself too, and they appear to have obstructed a train on at least one occasion, closing the station would not resolve the issues in any case, unless you went ahead and closed the whole line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly this.

I would add that, as it appears the couple in question claim they own the railway track itself too, and they appear to have obstructed a train on at least one occasion, closing the station would not resolve the issues in any case, unless you went ahead and closed the whole line.

This is true, access would still be required to maintain the platform to ensure it didn't deteriorate to the point that it started clouting trains, or (and they really wouldn't like this) to demolish it and erect a fence.

 

[tspaul26]

Is right of way law in Scotland specific to leisure use? In England it is not; a right of way is a right of way to "pass and repass" for any purpose (including commercial) by anyone on foot, much as some organisations like the National Trust and the Milton Keynes Parks Trust don't like it and sometimes seek to pretend otherwise in order to get a cut of the takings for commercial use. It strikes me as odd unless Scotland is different why Network Rail staff would not have the same right as someone using the station.

No, not necessarily, but rights of way in England do not always operate in the manner you suggest either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, not necessarily, but rights of way in England do not always operate in the manner you suggest either.

Is it more like a wayleave than a standard public right of way then? Can you give an example of a context in which a standard public right of way (one marked as a green dotted line on an Ordnance Survey 1:25K map for instance and on the Local Authority definitive map) would not allow one to pass and repass for any purpose provided one did not engage in other activities nor loiter unnecessarily? Genuinely interested. (I'm aware Scotland does not have these in the same way).

 

[tspaul26]

Is it more like a wayleave than a standard public right of way then?

I’m afraid I don’t really follow. Wayleaves are irrelevant.

Can you give an example of a context in which a standard public right of way

There is no such thing as a “standard public right of way” so it is not possible to answer this.

There is also the question of non-public rights of way which adds further potential complication.

would not allow one to pass and repass for any purpose provided one did not engage in other activities nor loiter unnecessarily

The use of a public right of way is not so limited. Otherwise, it would be unlawful to park a car in the street or to put out tables and chairs on the pavement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m afraid I don’t really follow. Wayleaves are irrelevant.

There is no such thing as a “standard public right of way” so it is not possible to answer this.

There is also the question of non-public rights of way which adds further potential complication.

The use of a public right of way is not so limited. Otherwise, it would be unlawful to park a car in the street or to put out tables and chairs on the pavement.

As you're clearly knowledgeable in this matter, could you perhaps provide a link or two explaining the situation with this specific right of way as the law stands? I think as I'm not a legal professional unlike you my questions are always going to result in answers which are specific and correct but don't help me in gaining understanding of the issue unless we spent a very long time clogging this thread up with a game of "Twenty Questions".

 

[MadMarsupial]

Is it more like a wayleave than a standard public right of way then? Can you give an example of a context in which a standard public right of way (one marked as a green dotted line on an Ordnance Survey 1:25K map for instance and on the Local Authority definitive map) would not allow one to pass and repass for any purpose provided one did not engage in other activities nor loiter unnecessarily? Genuinely interested. (I'm aware Scotland does not have these in the same way).

I can't give a reference but 30 years ago the Marsupial was a fitter creature and was training to take his Mountain Leadership Award. While discussing rights of way the trainer made it clear it is a right of travel and not to be used for other purposes. The example he gave was of someone using a right of way near a racing stables to time horses. An injunction was gained to make this individual desist.

Edited. Have now found a reference to the case I mentioned above i.e. the race horses case. The situation re what you can and can't do on a footpath ( England and Wales) is covered in some detail on the following webpage https://pnfs.org.uk/newsletter/1309-allowed.htm
The key observation is that the Blue Book ( Rights of Way; A guide to Law and Practice ) states that you have the rights on a footpath as follows " ... right of passage for the purposes of passing and repassing and for purposes reasonably incidental thereto". Taking photos or stopping for a snack are held to be "reasonably incidental to " but I would think repairing railway infrastructure probably wouldn't be.

 

[tspaul26]

As you're clearly knowledgeable in this matter, could you perhaps provide a link or two explaining the situation with this specific right of way as the law stands? I think as I'm not a legal professional unlike you my questions are always going to result in answers which are specific and correct but don't help me in gaining understanding of the issue unless we spent a very long time clogging this thread up with a game of "Twenty Questions".

This is a very complex and archaic area of law so you’re not going to find a simple explanation on a website I’m afraid.

And I’m not aware that it has been established that there is any right of way in this case (public or private), save for the private right of way between the cottage and the road which benefits the heritor of the cottage.

As a starting point, the following texts give a good overview:

Sauvain (England)

Greig (Scotland)

 

[Baxenden Bank]

This is a very complex and archaic area of law so you’re not going to find a simple explanation on a website I’m afraid.

And I’m not aware that it has been established that there is any right of way in this case (public or private), save for the private right of way between the cottage and the road which benefits the heritor of the cottage.

As a starting point, the following texts give a good overview:

Sauvain (England)

Greig (Scotland)

The Right of Way, on foot, to the platform has been acknowledged. The case reported recently covers this point but then Howe and or Appleby then dispute the exact location of said Right of Way. @miami kindly provided a copy of the court transcript in post 667.

COURT SUMMARY BY STEPHEN SCANDRETT
Options Hearing - 3rd April 2024
Party litigants - Howe and Appleby.
Apology from Appleby regarding their conduct at the last hearing on 7th Februar 2025.

The following are a series of extracts from the court summary.

The side gate is owned by Mr Appleby stated Ms Howe and that is the route pedestrians need to use. She confirmed that the couple dispute the location of the public right of way.

Mr Appleby stated that while he agrees that there is a footpath somewhere here, its exact position is uncertain. New ‘expert evidence’ would possibly help to a address that issue. Sheriff Wilson confirmed that a public right of way can go over private land allover Scotland.

Ms Howe stated that whilst she agrees that a public path and right of way does exist the position is not known and a survey is required to establish this.

Mr Appleby confirmed that the couple would prefer access by pedestrians was to use the traditional right of way.

Sheriff Wilson asked the couple for an undertaking that they would not stop pedestrian access by a member of the public over the established right of way to the railway platform. Mr Appleby stated that the couple had always done this and that they welcome everyone at the station and to come in for a cup of tea!

I do wonder what the behaviour was at the 7 February hearing which required an apology on this occasion.

 

[tspaul26]

The Right of Way, on foot, to the platform has been acknowledged.

This is the problem though: acknowledgment by Appleby is irrelevant if he is not the heritor of the land over which the way passes.

And if the putative servient tenement is owned by Network Rail then it is legally impossible for there to be a servitude of way providing access to the station.

The case reported recently covers this point but then Howe and or Appleby then dispute the exact location of said Right of Way.

There are three issues with attempting to rely on this:

1. The civil proceedings in question are not occurring in a court of record.
2. The proceedings have not yet been determined so there is no decree either way.
3. If the existence of a right of way has been a matter of concession in the record then any final decree which may ensue will also not determine the point either.

 

[Jam381]

The Right of Way, on foot, to the platform has been acknowledged. The case reported recently covers this point but then Howe and or Appleby then dispute the exact location of said Right of Way. @miami kindly provided a copy of the court transcript in post 667.



The following are a series of extracts from the court summary.











I do wonder what the behaviour was at the 7 February hearing which required an apology on this occasion.

I believe the apology for the behaviour was Lizzy shouting at or trying to talk over the Sheriff.

Ian and Lizzy set up a Gofundme that they claimed they would use to hire a Lawyer, the money hasn't been used for this purpose so people believe this is a grift against Network Rail.

I also advise visiting the excellent website:

https://www.ballybannon-uncovered.com/

This covers the story of Ian and Lizzy at Altnabreac in more detail.

 

[AlterEgo]

Where in the passenger use table does Altnabreac come, surely near to the bottom.
How many people would it affect if there was no longer an Altnabreac Railway Station? I know it would never happen but it would save a hell of a lot of money if it was closed permanently.

It would be far more in the public interest to defeat the couple, otherwise you entertain your own cowardice.

 

[Banana]

The next instalment of the couples barmy behaviour has just hit YouTube. Scotrail on the receiving end this time.

Link?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I believe the apology for the behaviour was Lizzy shouting at or trying to talk over the Sheriff.

Ian and Lizzy set up a Gofundme that they claimed they would use to hire a Lawyer, the money hasn't been used for this purpose so people believe this is a grift against Network Rail.

I also advise visiting the excellent website:

https://www.ballybannon-uncovered.com/

This covers the story of Ian and Lizzy at Altnabreac in more detail.

It's unfortunate that the linked site appears to be little more than a series of links to a YouTube channel. As such it seems designed solely to drive traffic to said channel which I daresay is monetised. I'm not impressed.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

It's unfortunate that the linked site appears to be little more than a series of links to a YouTube channel. As such it seems designed solely to drive traffic to said channel which I daresay is monetised. I'm not impressed.

'Tis the way of the world. A totally anonymous blog too.
Watch me pick my nose and scratch my ear, live streaming, daily at 1500.

 

[ian1944]

I'd forgotten about the attempt to raise money from sympathisers. To my "creepy couple" comment above, I'd now add "credulous public". Would any of you give them even a bent penny?

 

[38Cto15E]

I think that 'Never shuts up Liz' prefers to be known as Elizabeth.
I get the impression that they have more support on their youtube videos than they do on other 'socials'.

 

[Chrius56000]

. . .It might be a silly question, but can't the station be resited some metres away so it's away from this obnoxious couple's (claimed!) property extents?

 

[AlterEgo]

. . .It might be a silly question, but can't the station be resited some metres away so it's away from this obnoxious couple's (claimed!) property extents?

Why would you want to spend so much money to cave in to a couple of people who don’t live on the same planet as the rest of us?