No trains to call at Altnabreac for the foreseeable future

[ConnectingDots]

Whilst online Land Registry maps are never 100% conclusive, this is fairly clear that the platform is not within the land owned by Station Cottage:
View attachment 164933
It also looks as though the Station Cottage property was carved out from the rest of the land when the cottage was sold on in 2021. It looks like the vendor (presumably the businessman who the cottage owner alleges is running an illegal landfill and scrap yard five miles from the nearest road) retained the rest of the land.

The foot access to the platform is to the northern corner of the Station Cottage land and so wouldn't cross the home owner's property marked in red in the above image. Access for road vehicles would cross the home owner's property.

Sounds like the home owner is madder than a cut snake, tbh, but it will require the Court to determine the extent of the property rights. Which will be why it's taking so long to sort out.

Station House CTH7726 was sold to the landowner in 2021 by the 'businessman's' wife. The 'businessman's' wife owned the property, not him. The 'businessman' and his wife have retained ownership of any land at Altnabreac and so your presumption is incorrect. Other areas of land owned by the landowner is registered in the General Sasines Register.

As you will see from the satellite versions of the Station House title above, which can be found by searching the cadastral mapping system on ROS, the entrance and the footpath/driveway used by members of the public to access the station IS within the landowner's registered title and so you are incorrect by claiming that members of the public do not need to cross the landowner's land to access the station. However, the issue is not about members of the public accessing the station as they have a right to. Members of the public access the station by entering a side gate that leads directly onto the landowner's land to access the platform area. Even though the station has been closed for almost a year, members of the public continue to visit the station (walkers / cyclists) and the landowner enjoys meeting and speaking to the public. Network Rail, as a commercial body, do not have a legal right of access to use the landowner's land without his permission. The landowner did not support the closure of the station and has been trying to work with Network Rail to resolve matters speedily to enable services to be reinstated as quickly as possible.

 

[Deepgreen]

Whatever the legal rights and wrongs here regarding the right of way/access, the owners/operators of the land have illegally buried tyres and perhaps more besides, so have not covered themselves in glory. If Network Rail are having problems (rightly or wrongly) getting road access for whatever maintenance they need to do, perhaps the extraordinary and outlandish idea of materials/workers delivery by rail could come into play, instead of just abandoning the station. As others have said, the station may only have a handful of users, but the principle is very important.

At the other end of the country, and local to me, Betchworth station house is privately owned and the small forecourt is now more or less closed to traffic - there is no parking there and dropping off is only grumbling 'allowed'. It's a lightly-used station (my nearest), and I could imagine a situation like the Altnabreac one arising, if the owner decided to be awkward. Network Rail have used the old goods yard for access but the land has been up for sale recently and it could get complicated enough to present problems.

 

[ConnectingDots]

the owners/operators of the land have illegally buried tyres and perhaps more besides, so have not covered themselves in glory.

That would be the previous owners that buried the tyres etc, not the current owners. I believe the current owners reported the tyres etc to SEPA.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Station House CTH7726 was sold to the landowner in 2021 by the 'businessman's' wife.

It was, for £162,000, as I'm sure you know.

As I'm also sure you know, the extent of title CTH7726 is as below:


This clearly does not include the platform.

The other property slightly to the south has clearly not been sold since 2003, hence why it is still on the old General Sasines register. The railway line itself, together with both platforms and the patch of land to the north east, is likewise still on the old General Sasines register.

The Land Register of Scotland has replaced the General Sasines register for all new transfers of land, and registration for all new transfers is compulsory. Therefore the owner of title CTH7726 cannot own land which is still only in the General Sasines register unless they owned it before 2003.

I'm no expert on Scottish law but my understanding is that this doesn't differ too much from English law when HM Land Registry came into being. It was always fun doing the conveyancing for land which was a new registration...

Whatever the legal rights and wrongs here regarding the right of way/access, the owners/operators of the land have illegally buried tyres and perhaps more besides

We only have the owner of station cottage's word that this, indeed, did happen. Given how far the land is from the nearest road, I am somewhat sceptical.

My best guess is the dispute between the vendor (the businessman and his wife) and the current owner of station cottage has blown out of all proportion and the railway has been caught in the crossfire.

 

[Bald Rick]

EE got around it by installing the phone mast with a helicopter.

It could be served during daylight hours only, or another solution e.g. solar powered or wind powered lighting be installed.

Well here’s the other solution - access to the station provided by helicopter! I may or may not have suggested the same in a prevous thread about sleepers to the far north. Perhaps if Scotrail started choppering in the few punters that want to use it, especially for the early train, the owners may have a different view on pedestrian access to the station.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

You are very welcome. Yes, indeed, it is a land ownership issue and NR need permission to access and use the said land. The maps and title plans on ROS are definitive. The other parts of land owned by the landowner like the platform (including the disused one)/garden is registered in the General Sasine's, just to reiterate NR external solicitors 'Dentons' have confirmed that NR 'Do Not' own the platform. You are the first person on this entire thread to hit the nail on the head and get it 100% correct. I guess this is what happens when you ask the right questions.

This is interesting, and information I didn’t know. Thank you.

Do you know if access for cables has been an issue for Network rail/ScotRail? I’d imagine if the owners aren’t happy with access via the track, there might be other issues.

Also, do you know if there’s a particular outcome the owners are looking for? I know you said that the owner would like the station to remain open, so is it a matter of arranging a settlement?

 

[ConnectingDots]

This clearly does not include the platform.

The title for Station House registered under Title Number CTH7726 does not include the area of land that was used as a platform. The landowner's ownership right to this area of land (the platform) is registered in the General Sasine's Register as previously stated on this thread. These ownership rights came with Station House and have remained with Station House. The fact that the landowner's ownership rights for this area of land is registered in the Sasine's Register does not change the position of ownership.

The other property slightly to the south has clearly not been sold since 2003, hence why it is still on the old General Sasines register. The railway line itself, together with both platforms and the patch of land to the north east, is likewise still on the old General Sasines register.

The landowner's ownership rights relate to the railway line, both platforms and other areas of land at Altnabreac and as you have correctly stated, these rights are registered in the General Sasine's register and legally valid.

We only have the owner of station cottage's word that this, indeed, did happen. Given how far the land is from the nearest road, I am somewhat sceptical.

My best guess is the dispute between the vendor (the businessman and his wife) and the current owner of station cottage has blown out of all proportion and the railway has been caught in the crossfire.

That's not true. The truth is the landowner knew about the illegal landfill before they moved in and filmed the illegal scrap yard and landfill before, during and after the burying. The landowner's solicitor was made aware before they moved in because 'businessman' told the landowner he was 'going to sort it' before he and his wife moved out. The landowner thought the 'businessman' meant he was going to clear out the illegal landfill and move the tyres and other waste to a licensed landfill, but he buried it instead. That is how the 'businessman' 'sorted it' by illegally burying it.

All the locals knew, it was very well known by all the NR workers that had photos of the tyres and also complaints of the tyre fires and black smoke going across the track. Regular walkers/visitors to Altnabreac took photos of trenching being opened up to bury waste, one was a popular Youtuber called 'John Lucas'. Not to forget the video of the wife of 'Businessman' on Youtube confessing to "We've burying stuff there for years" when asked about the tyres. SEPA know about, just request it through the FOIA.

 

[Krokodil]

I don't think your comment is very 'Polite'.

I think that José Mourinho had the right idea. Even if he did get sent off.

 

[DelW]

At the other end of the country, and local to me, Betchworth station house is privately owned and the small forecourt is now more or less closed to traffic - there is no parking there and dropping off is only grumbling 'allowed'. It's a lightly-used station (my nearest), and I could imagine a situation like the Altnabreac one arising, if the owner decided to be awkward. Network Rail have used the old goods yard for access but the land has been up for sale recently and it could get complicated enough to present problems.

I'm puzzled by how often large organisations, whether public bodies or commercial entities, sell off houses and/or land for relatively trivial sums, then find that they get endless and expensive problems from the new owners.

I saw it in the water industry, where companies sold off houses (originally intended for staff use) located on or alongside operational treatment works. They then found that the new owners objected to any new construction on the works, either needing expensive mitigation and restrictive conditions or even making the work impossible.

 

[ConnectingDots]

This is interesting, and information I didn’t know. Thank you.

You're welcome, you ask good questions.

Do you know if access for cables has been an issue for Network rail/ScotRail? I’d imagine if the owners aren’t happy with access via the track, there might be other issues.

Not sure about the cables. The owners have never had any issue with members of the public using the driveway, however some people get mixed up with the previous owners which did have an issue with the public, there are some old threads that discuss this subject somewhere on RUKF.

Also, do you know if there’s a particular outcome the owners are looking for? I know you said that the owner would like the station to remain open, so is it a matter of arranging a settlement?

The owners are eager to resolve matters and used to enjoy using the train and it is very helpful in winter months because of the remote area. The previous owners had an access agreement but the relationship between Scotrail and the previous owners broke down which resulted in Scotrail not being allowed on the platform for approximately 2 years, you will see videos on Youtube with the long grass and lack of maintenance during this time. The owners are very keen to resolve matters as soon as possible to get the station reopened. It would be nice if there could be a cut the ribbon re-open ceremony, I think they would invite 'Clive's Travel and trains' on Youtube to cut the ribbon.

 

[kkong]

As you will see from the satellite versions of the Station House title above, which can be found by searching the cadastral mapping system on ROS, the entrance and the footpath/driveway used by members of the public to access the station IS within the landowner's registered title and so you are incorrect by claiming that members of the public do not need to cross the landowner's land to access the station.

Why are you so focussed on the satellite image (which shows the access path within title CTH7726), rather than the base cadastral map (which clearly shows the access path outside title CTH7726)?

 

[skyhigh]

You are the first person on this entire thread to hit the nail on the head and get it 100% correct. I guess this is what happens when you ask the right questions.

Is it correct to say you have a personal connection to this?

 

[Gloster]

You're welcome, you ask good questions.


Not sure about the cables. The owners have never had any issue with members of the public using the driveway, however some people get mixed up with the previous owners which did have an issue with the public, there are some old threads that discuss this subject somewhere on RUKF.


The owners are eager to resolve matters and used to enjoy using the train and it is very helpful in winter months because of the remote area. The previous owners had an access agreement but the relationship between Scotrail and the previous owners broke down which resulted in Scotrail not being allowed on the platform for approximately 2 years, you will see videos on Youtube with the long grass and lack of maintenance during this time. The owners are very keen to resolve matters as soon as possible to get the station reopened. It would be nice if there could be a cut the ribbon re-open ceremony, I think they would invite 'Clive's Travel and trains' on Youtube to cut the ribbon.

If the owners are eager to resolve the matter, why is it still running after so long and has degenerated into the situation that it is now?

 

[Mcv378]

Because the person posting wants money from Scotrail.

 

[Darandio]

Because the person posting wants money from Scotrail.

To quote the person posting regularly in the thread who is clearly involved. You have "hit the nail on the head and got it 100% correct"

 

[Tetchytyke]

The landowner's ownership right to this area of land (the platform) is registered in the General Sasine's Register as previously stated on this thread.

They can’t have acquired that ownership after 2003 because any transfer of ownership after then is subject to mandatory registration in the land register.

No land transactions after 2003 are recorded in the traditional General Sasines Register. What that register says is no longer relevant.

Any purchase the cottage owner made in 2021 therefore did not include the platform, irrespective of what land may previously have been attached to that cottage. I’m sure at one time the cottage and the station platform were part of the same parcel of land, but they’re clearly not now.

I neither know nor care who does own it, but it is abundantly clear that you the cottage owner does not.

Because the person posting wants money from Scotrail.

Bingo.

They want money for something that doesn’t belong to them.

Add in a large dose of “Freeman on the Land” type entitlement and general misunderstanding of the law, and here we are. No wonder all their neighbours think they’re barking.

It’s been an illuminating conversation though. An old record says the platform once shared an owner as the cottage (obviously- it was an railway cottage) and the new owner of the cottage thinks it still applies.

No wonder the dispute is so intractable, ultimately only the court can decide on where the boundaries between ownership is.

I hope NR win and recover all their costs.

I'm puzzled by how often large organisations, whether public bodies or commercial entities, sell off houses and/or land for relatively trivial sums, then find that they get endless and expensive problems from the new owners.

It’s always a risk, definitely. Clearly there have been no issues for a very long time, but it only takes one person with a lack of legal knowledge and a huge dose of entitlement for everything to go wrong.

 

[alxndr]

The owners are eager to resolve matters and used to enjoy using the train and it is very helpful in winter months because of the remote area. The previous owners had an access agreement but the relationship between Scotrail and the previous owners broke down which resulted in Scotrail not being allowed on the platform for approximately 2 years, you will see videos on Youtube with the long grass and lack of maintenance during this time. The owners are very keen to resolve matters as soon as possible to get the station reopened. It would be nice if there could be a cut the ribbon re-open ceremony, I think they would invite 'Clive's Travel and trains' on Youtube to cut the ribbon.

So the owners have cut off their nose to spite their face.
Legal stance aside, they want the benefits which come from having a station quite literally on their doorstep, but they don't want to permit the occasional maintenance visit solely out of stubbornness and/or greed.

Why are you so focussed on the satellite image (which shows the access path within title CTH7726), rather than the base cadastral map (which clearly shows the access path outside title CTH7726)?

This is a very good point. Anyone who has ever played around with editing OpenStreetMap will know how "off" satellite images can be at times.

 

[Trainbike46]

The landowner's ownership rights relate to the railway line, both platforms and other areas of land at Altnabreac and as you have correctly stated, these rights are registered in the General Sasine's register and legally valid.

so, just to clarify, you are saying that the railway line itself, as well as both platforms, are registered as belonging to the owner of the station house in the general sasine register, and therefore haven't changed hands since 2003?

View attachment 164950

Because the person posting wants money from Scotrail.

that does appear to be the situation, despite the ROS maps making quite clear that the station, and the station house did not transfer ownership at the same time

 

[ConnectingDots]

It has been reported the home owner has cut electrical cables running through his property, those cables powering safety equipment at the station and at the level crossing.

You seem to be consistently in error of most things, some of which I will not bother to go in to. However, to put this false accusation straight, the previous owner the 'Business' man cut the cable that fed the level crossing telephones. This is well known among NR workers and I personally heard the full story from 'David Sutherland, head of level crossings manager'. The 'Business' man cut through the cable with a JCB Telescopic Handler, and it is alleged that he did it on purpose.

 

[Trainbike46]

You seem to be consistently in error of most things, some of which I will not bother to go in to. However, to put this false accusation straight, the previous owner the 'Business' man cut the cable that fed the level crossing telephones. This is well known among NR workers and I personally heard the full story from 'David Sutherland, head of level crossings manager'. The 'Business' man cut through the cable with a JCB Telescopic Handler, and it is alleged that he did it on purpose.

So at least you're admitting to being one of the current owners of the station house/cottage?

 

[Deepgreen]

They can’t have acquired that ownership after 2003 because any transfer of ownership after then is subject to mandatory registration in the land register.

No land transactions after 2003 are recorded in the traditional General Sasines Register. What that register says is no longer relevant.

Any purchase the cottage owner made in 2021 therefore did not include the platform, irrespective of what land may previously have been attached to that cottage. I’m sure at one time the cottage and the station platform were part of the same parcel of land, but they’re clearly not now.

I neither know nor care who does own it, but it is abundantly clear that you the cottage owner does not.


Bingo.

They want money for something that doesn’t belong to them.

Add in a large dose of “Freeman on the Land” type entitlement and general misunderstanding of the law, and here we are. No wonder all their neighbours think they’re barking.

It’s been an illuminating conversation though. An old record says the platform once shared an owner as the cottage (obviously- it was an railway cottage) and the new owner of the cottage thinks it still applies.

No wonder the dispute is so intractable, ultimately only the court can decide on where the boundaries between ownership is.

I hope NR win and recover all their costs.



It’s always a risk, definitely. Clearly there have been no issues for a very long time, but it only takes one person with a lack of legal knowledge and a huge dose of entitlement for everything to go wrong.

Me too, but I don't know where all their costs would be covered from - I very much doubt that the perpetrators could cover the sum.

 

[Tetchytyke]

that does appear to be the situation, despite the ROS maps making quite clear that the station, and the station house did not transfer ownership at the same time

In short, yes.

Historically land ownership in Scotland was registered on the General Sasines register (NB not General Sasine's- it's not a person's name). Over the last 30 years or so these traditional registers have been replaced by the Land Registry, county by county. The General Sasines register was replaced in Caithness in 2003.

A similar thing has happened in England and Wales with HM Land Registry. Upon transfer, any unregistered land had to- by law- be registered. I used to do this as a conveyancer in England. It was impossible to transfer legal ownership without also registering the land at HM Land Registry as a first registration. I'm not an expert on Scottish law but I did used to do conveyancing in England and my understanding is that the land registration schemes in England and Wales and in Scotland aren't very different.

The rail line and both platform faces, together with the patch of land to the north east of the site, are not registered. These are still on the General Sasines register. This means that these parcels of land have not been transferred since 2003- if they had been, they would no longer be on the General Sasines register.

The current owner of the station cottage purchased it in 2021 for £162,000. Therefore they do not- they cannot- own land which is still on the General Sasines register. Not unless they have a time machine, anyway.

It would appear that the current property owner has seen that the cottage and platform were, at some point in the dim and distant past, linked as a common parcel of land. It would make sense if this was the case, it was a railway cottage after all.

They have seemingly then decided that this means they still own the platform, even though the official land register is pretty unequivocal in the fact that they do not.

Presumably (and this is just a presumption) Network Rail were intending to build a new access path to the north east of the existing path to avoid this silliness. Except the cottage owner has decided that this land is also theirs, using the same flawed logic.

This whole thread has been very illuminating as to what the real issue is and why it has become so intractable. The cottage owner appears sincere in their belief that they own something that they do not. I can't help but wonder who- if anyone- is advising them.

NB None of this means that Network Rail own the land either. The poster on this thread appears keen to argue that Network Rail don't own the platform. That may or may not be the case- interesting as I find these sorts of disputes, I'm certainly not paying actual money to check the General Sasines register to find out- but Network Rail not owning it doesn't mean that the cottage owner does own it.

Me too, but I don't know where all their costs would be covered from - I very much doubt that the perpetrators could cover the sum

There's a £162,000 property available as collateral...

 

[ConnectingDots]

the owners/operators of the land have illegally buried tyres and perhaps more besides, so have not covered themselves in glory.

We only have the owner of station cottage's word that this, indeed, did happen. Given how far the land is from the nearest road, I am somewhat sceptical.

Like previously stated there are a plethora of witnesses of the unlicenced scrap yard being operated by the previous occupiers when they lived at Station House. There is video footage online of the burying of the tyres and waste before, during and after it was buried. And not to mention the 'businessman's' wife's confession to burying waste at the illegal landfill for years. Also, the news article talking of the death of a man at the scrap yard in the John o'Groat journal "It is understood that Stuart Young (63) was helping a friend to load scrap vehicles onto a trailer in the Altnabreac area in early April when he suffered fatal injuries." The link to this is at #131 of this thread.

Given how far the land is from the nearest road, I am somewhat sceptical.

Not sure if you know where it is you are even talking about? Do you think it was a concern for the 'Business' man on how far from a road he was when he installed his commercial car lift in the scrap yard?

I'm no expert on Scottish law but my understanding is that this doesn't differ too much from English law when HM Land Registry came into being. It was always fun doing the conveyancing for land which was a new registration...

The current landowners appreciate that they have been advised by a qualified legal adviser in Scottish property law, however the legal professional had all the relevant information, of which you have not. That is all I have to say about this situation at this current time.

 

[Moderating team]

Looks like we have reached an impasse here - we will reopen the thread when there are any further substantial developments (such as the reopening of the station).

 

[yorkie]

Reopened for @skyhigh to post an update

 

[skyhigh]

A GoFundMe appeal has been launched by the homeowners - they are looking to raise £30,000 to, among other things, "sue Network Rail, BTP and Registers of Scotland".

They are also looking to raise money to cover their travel expenses as "we do not have a car that is roadworthy - we cannot drive it on a public road and live 40 miles from nearest town... Because we live in a remote place it will involve a lot of travelling."

Hello everyone who is following our channel Altnabreac Cover up. We have taken the kind advice from people who are following us and supporting us to set up a Go Fund me page to try and raise funds to help us fight against Network Rail and those supporting them like the BTP coming against us to enable this land dispute to be resolved through the proper legal channels.

We have been touched by the overwhelming support we have received since we began to publicise the harassment we are suffering at the hands of Network Rail, BTP and other public bodies all coming against us. Like we have always said, the only way to resolve this land dispute is through the proper legal civil process and lawfully. We really are up against the system here as I hope you can all see. We really need help to raise funds to enable us to do the following please: -

1. Get a legal team to help us – get an urgent interdict (UK equivalent of
injunction)
2. Get a surveyor
3. Sue Network Rail
4. Sue BTP
5. Sue Registers of Scotland
6. Help us buy better recording equipment to gather evidence
7. Money to travel (we do not have a car that is roadworthy - we cannot drive it on a public road and live 40 miles from nearest town).
Because we live in a remote place it will involve a lot of travelling.

We please ask for donations if you are willing and able to help us. We intend to keep our channel updated documenting our fight to keep our supporters fully updated to see how your help is helping us.

For three years we have been trying to fight this on our own without a solicitor. We desperately need legal representation to act for us. We are going against Network Rail, BTP and other public bodies and need an expert legal team who have the expertise and capacity to take this case on.

Donate to ALTNABREAC COVER UP, organized by Ian Appleby

Hello everyone who is following my channel Altnabreac Cover up. I have taken the kind advice from peop… Ian Appleby needs your support for ALTNABREAC COVER UP

www.gofundme.com

 

[Southsider]

A GoFundMe appeal has been launched by the homeowners - they are looking to raise £30,000 to, among other things, "sue Network Rail, BTP and Registers of Scotland".

They are also looking to raise money to cover their travel expenses as "we do not have a car that is roadworthy - we cannot drive it on a public road and live 40 miles from nearest town... Because we live in a remote place it will involve a lot of travelling."

Donate to ALTNABREAC COVER UP, organized by Ian Appleby

Hello everyone who is following my channel Altnabreac Cover up. I have taken the kind advice from peop… Ian Appleby needs your support for ALTNABREAC COVER UP

www.gofundme.com

If only they had a rail service ………

 

[InkyScrolls]

Well I've immediately reported that nonsense - hopefully GoFundMe will do something.

 

[SteveM70]

You really couldn’t make it up. And thirty grand won’t go far on that list of theirs

 

[aar0]

Surely if they’re confident they’d offer the house as collateral to a suitable solicitor. When they win the fees will be covered by NR. If they lost, they wouldn’t want to be reminded of that loss every day…

And what travel is needed with the existence of the internet for this battle?