No trains to call at Altnabreac for the foreseeable future

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, they seem to also be laying claim to the actual platform.

With that specific matter in mind, has such a claim ever been made by private individuals on any railway, past or present, on the UK rail network that could be a precedent. The "railway by-laws" seem to cover an inordinate number of matters appertaining to railway property, so is there anything in those that could be brought to bear on the current seemingly impasse situation.

 

[tspaul26]

The "railway by-laws" seem to cover an inordinate number of matters appertaining to railway property, so is there anything in those that could be brought to bear on the current seemingly impasse situation.

Not really, no. At least, not to determine the property ownership aspect of the matter.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not really, no. At least, not to determine the property ownership aspect of the matter.

When the Sutherland and Caithness Railway built Altnabreac railway station, the platform would have been constructed and paid for by them and as such, would be shown in property deeds appertaining to that railway station. Those deeds would legally have been passed on to each owning railway company since that date.

 

[tspaul26]

When the Sutherland and Caithness Railway built Altnabreac railway station, the platform would have been constructed and paid for by them and as such, would be shown in property deeds appertaining to that railway station. Those deeds would legally have been passed on to each owning railway company since that date.

That’s all very well, but you asked about the byelaws.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When the Sutherland and Caithness Railway built Altnabreac railway station, the platform would have been constructed and paid for by them and as such, would be shown in property deeds appertaining to that railway station. Those deeds would legally have been passed on to each owning railway company since that date.

And then the house was sold, which has created the problem.

 

[Vespa]

I saw YouTube clip of the owner speaking to the BTP being all Mr Reasonable etc obviously putting his case across via YouTube in the best light possible, obviously being Mr Cynical me, there's three sides to every story, I dont see how the house oener can make a claim to the platform given the fact it was there before it was parcelled off with the reductions in service, there's been clear public access to the station platform for years, so why now ?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And then the house was sold, which has created the problem.

At the time of the sale, would a currently used passenger railway station platform have been incorporated in that sale, as that is a matter that first would have to be discussed with the solicitors acting for the railway in that matter.

 

[tspaul26]

At the time of the sale, would a currently used passenger railway station platform have been incorporated in that sale, as that is a matter that first would have to be discussed with the solicitors acting for the railway in that matter.

It depends on what the relevant writ contains, but on a practical level it is inherently unlikely that the heritage in the platform would have been disponed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It depends on what the relevant writ contains, but on a practical level it is inherently unlikely that the heritage in the platform would have been disponed.

Thank you for your observation and comment made.

 

[tspaul26]

The one thing that does appear fairly clear is that the current owner of the cottage is not (and in law cannot be) the owner of the platform.

 

[Hedge Fund]

What a mess this whole thing is.

I agree with the general premise of what a couple of posters have said already:

1) The owners of the Station Cottage genuinely believe they own the platform/track area. It is extremely unlikely that they do own the platform, and they have probably misunderstood what they were actually buying, or have made some incorrect assumptions about what they own, based on ancient documents.

2) The land they claim to own which is the other side of the driveway (the area with their washing line and the new Network Rail path) isn't theirs either. They claim to own it through what they say is 'Solomn rights' (a term that doesn't actually exist) but what they mean is some form of Adverse Possession (called Positive Prescription in Scotland) but that isn't possible either it requires them to use it for 10 years then go through a legal process to claim it as their own, which they obviously haven't done as they have only lived there 3 years. The previous owner of Station Cottage obviously hasn't legally claimed the land either. Again, this is likely a complete misunderstanding on their part as to what they legally own.

3) The issue of Network Rail accessing their driveway with vehicles is less clear, as the driveway may be in their ownership. But you can't rely on the satellite maps as they are inherently inaccurate and a qualified land dispute surveyor would need to visit the property in person to make a determination. Additionally, even if they do fully own the driveway, then Section 14 of The Railway Regulation Act 1842 gives Network Rail the power to access and cross private land if they need to carry out repairs and maintenance, or for a safety issue. Also... a court can force access to any land on behalf of Network Rail if the landowner refuses to play ball.

In short, my guess is that they are going to get nowhere with any of this, and will lose badly, then get slapped with tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs if they get taken to court by Network Rail.

I just don't understand it. If it was me, it wouldn't bother me at all to allow Network Rail occasional access through my driveway with vehicles as long as I had a working platform at the end of my garden. On balance, the rail service would be far more use to me than anything else.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Taking a Biblical view on the matter, when Jesus was asked by the rabbinical acolytes who they should give money to, I can well imagine the following in a situation such as this....

Acolytes : Who owns this railway platform? Does it belong to that householder who lives nearby?
Jesus : Who uses the railway platform and who maintains it?
Acolytes: Railway passengers use it and the railway company maintains it.
Jesus: Render unto the railway company the platform that is railway company maintained. Render unto the householder that land legally exterior to the platform.

Here endeth the lesson for today.

 

[Killingworth]

Taking a Biblical view on the matter, when Jesus was asked by the rabbinical acolytes who they should give money to, I can well imagine the following in a situation such as this....

Acolytes : Who owns this railway platform? Does it belong to that householder who lives nearby?
Jesus : Who uses the railway platform and who maintains it?
Acolytes: Railway passengers use it and the railway company maintains it.
Jesus: Render unto the railway company the platform that is railway company maintained. Render unto the householder that land legally exterior to the platform.

Here endeth the lesson for today.

Amen

 

[Elwyn]

Wasn't it mentioned above that they were also trying to stop that?

According to post 556 the police have been there to ensure the contractors can get on with the work. So presumably they are reasonably satisfied that the contractors have a legitimate right to be where they are. The police's role would primarily be to prevent a breach of the peace, not to get involved in what a civil dispute, but at the same time I suspect they will have been shown paperwork which would indicate the contractors have permission from someone to be there. (Network Rail must have written permission to access the land and build the new path. Presumably they will have shown that to the police).

 

[ScarboroGull]

This is a planning application location plan, not an “ownership map” (whatever that might mean), so the question of ‘veracity’ is irrelev

This is a planning application location plan, not an “ownership map” (whatever that might mean), so the question of ‘veracity’ is irrelevant.

I appreciate that, but it appears to be a screen capture of the planning application within a system showing NR property holdings

I saw YouTube clip of the owner speaking to the BTP being all Mr Reasonable etc obviously putting his case across via YouTube in the best light possible, obviously being Mr Cynical me, there's three sides to every story, I dont see how the house oener can make a claim to the platform given the fact it was there before it was parcelled off with the reductions in service, there's been clear public access to the station platform for years, so why now ?

The owner of SC claims "solum rights" to the platform and the land to the northeast. I haven't seen any expansion or explanation of that claim.

 

[reb0118]

The one thing that does appear fairly clear is that the current owner of the cottage is not (and in law cannot be) the owner of the platform.

Yeah, but it's public innit. Therefore he must own part of it?.....

It wouldn't surprise me if the couple try to expand on that premise.

 

[tspaul26]

I appreciate that, but it appears to be a screen capture of the planning application within a system showing NR property holdings

So?

The owner of SC claims "solum rights" to the platform and the land to the northeast. I haven't seen any expansion or explanation of that claim.

There are two main issues with this line of argument:

1. Even if this is correct and the owner of station cottage owns the solum, this means by definition that he does not own the platform or the surface of the land (including any access tracks). Nor would it give him any right to use the surface or to prevent anyone else from so doing.
2. No legal basis has been advanced or provided for this claim of ownership of the solum in any event, and it would be very difficult to demonstrate this in respect of the solum only.

This argument is therefore specious on its on terms.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The owner of SC claims "solum rights" to the platform and the land to the northeast. I haven't seen any expansion or explanation of that claim.

Be right in saying that in Scots law, the 'solum' is the area of ground that lies inside the walls or foundations of a building, in other words, the ground below where the building has been built on top?

If so, if you do own the cottage, does this necessarily also include ownership of the adjacent station platform?

 

[matchmaker]

Be right in saying that in Scots law, the 'solum' is the area of ground that lies inside the walls or foundations of a building, in other words, the ground below where the building has been built on top?

If so, if you do own the cottage, does this necessarily also include ownership of the adjacent station platform?

The solum is indeed as stated above. It is stated as such in several pieces of legislation. With regard to the possible costs of legal action, I always mention the case of Moncrieff -v- Jamieson Judgement which was an argument over access and parking rights over a small parcel of land in the arris end of Shetland. It started in the Sheriff Court at Lerwick and ended up in the House of Lords! The costs to the losing party must have run into many tens of thousands of pounds. I cite it as a warning to anyone who wants to argue over a small bit of land.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The solum is indeed as stated above. It is stated as such in several pieces of legislation. With regard to the possible costs of legal action, I always mention the case of Moncrieff -v- Jamieson Judgement which was an argument over access and parking rights over a small parcel of land in the arris end of Shetland. It started in the Sheriff Court at Lerwick and ended up in the House of Lords! The costs to the losing party must have run into many tens of thousands of pounds. I cite it as a warning to anyone who wants to argue over a small bit of land.

Particularly where it seems the sole purpose of arguing over it is to be able to obtain money from Network Rail for its use. Quite a risky approach.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On this website, the term "grandfather rights" referring to railway related matters has been used in the past, so somewhat naively, can I ask if that particular terminology could relate to the ownership of the actual railway station platform that reference was made to in an earlier posting.

 

[RichA]

I am a long time reader of this saga. I was involved on the sidelines with this issue, albeit the operational railway and not the house/station/driveway. About 6 months ago the couple also claimed they ‘owned’ the nearby user worked crossing and dismantled the signage, telephones and chained the gates shut, as other authorised users of the crossing were cutting these chains and, as there were no telephones, crossing the line without the means to check if it was safe to do so. This resulted in all trains having to be cautioned and eventually a 20mph TSR being imposed.

Eventually the couple stood on the crossing blocking the line as a train approached (20mph) causing it to be halted for a period of time while they shouted their ownership claim to the train crew and a few passengers.

This resulted in their debut court appearance and the sanctions imposed. NR restored the crossing to its original state and no more claims or issues have been forthcoming.

As I have now retired then I feel I can speak a little more openly about some aspects of this.

 

[tspaul26]

If so, if you do own the cottage, does this necessarily also include ownership of the adjacent station platform?

In a word, no.

On this website, the term "grandfather rights" referring to railway related matters has been used in the past, so somewhat naively, can I ask if that particular terminology could relate to the ownership of the actual railway station platform that reference was made to in an earlier posting.

No, it is a useful label, but has no standalone legal status or meaning in itself.

 

[SteveM70]

The solum is indeed as stated above. It is stated as such in several pieces of legislation. With regard to the possible costs of legal action, I always mention the case of Moncrieff -v- Jamieson Judgement which was an argument over access and parking rights over a small parcel of land in the arris end of Shetland. It started in the Sheriff Court at Lerwick and ended up in the House of Lords! The costs to the losing party must have run into many tens of thousands of pounds. I cite it as a warning to anyone who wants to argue over a small bit of land.

Well, their GoFundMe appeal is up to a whopping £1,135 now

 

[Elwyn]

On this website, the term "grandfather rights" referring to railway related matters has been used in the past, so somewhat naively, can I ask if that particular terminology could relate to the ownership of the actual railway station platform that reference was made to in an earlier posting.

Post 484 shows the Land Registry map of what is included in the Station House folio. It doesn’t include the platform.

It would be astonishing if Network Rail were to have allowed ownership of an operational platform to be sold into private hands. I am sure their lawyers would have objected strongly to any such change. (But no such change appears to have taken place). I don’t know who does own the platform (might be on a long lease from the local estate or NR might own it) but what is clear from that map is that it does not form part of the Station House folio.

I am a long time reader of this saga. I was involved on the sidelines with this issue, albeit the operational railway and not the house/station/driveway. About 6 months ago the couple also claimed they ‘owned’ the nearby user worked crossing and dismantled the signage, telephones and chained the gates shut, as other authorised users of the crossing were cutting these chains and, as there were no telephones, crossing the line without the means to check if it was safe to do so. This resulted in all trains having to be cautioned and eventually a 20mph TSR being imposed.

Eventually the couple stood on the crossing blocking the line as a train approached (20mph) causing it to be halted for a period of time while they shouted their ownership claim to the train crew and a few passengers.

This resulted in their debut court appearance and the sanctions imposed. NR restored the crossing to its original state and no more claims or issues have been forthcoming.

As I have now retired then I feel I can speak a little more openly about some aspects of this.

Interesting. Thank you.

Well, their GoFundMe appeal is up to a whopping £1,135 now

I hope they use it wisely and go and get good legal advice. Might save them a lot of wasted costs.

 

[Vespa]

Having read further and other YouTube clips regarding this saga.

I'm astonished that they think they could get away with such tactics, a high risk strategy indeed that has the potential to cost them thousands with little to show forit.

I've seen disputes over marginal strips of land between neighbours escalating up to the high courts with costs running up even to point of being forced to cash in their pensions or selling the property to fund it, ego and money are soon parted.

The mind boggles regarding mountains out of molehills.

 

[Hedge Fund]

Having read further and other YouTube clips regarding this saga.

I'm astonished that they think they could get away with such tactics, a high risk strategy indeed that has the potential to cost them thousands with little to show forit.

I've seen disputes over marginal strips of land between neighbours escalating up to the high courts with costs running up even to point of being forced to cash in their pensions or selling the property to fund it, ego and money are soon parted.

The mind boggles regarding mountains out of molehills.

They will have to be very very careful.

If they end up on the wrong side of a court case against them, they could end up paying the costs of Network Rail's solicitors. My experience of engaging corporate lawyers is that they could end up £20k deep after only one relatively small case.

 

[matchmaker]

They will have to be very very careful.

If they end up on the wrong side of a court case against them, they could end up paying the costs of Network Rail's solicitors. My experience of engaging corporate lawyers is that they could end up £20k deep after only one relatively small case.

As I mentioned in post 589 a case originally started in Lerwick Sheriff Court ended up in the Lords. Its passage was via (if I remember correctly) an appeal to the Sheriff Principal of Grampian, Highland and Islands, and from that decision to the Inner House of the Court of Session, and from that decision to the Lords. Eventual costs to the losing side would have been astronomical.

My interest lies in the fact that my wifes family used to own the land in question (many decades ago) and I knew both parties to the case.

The value of the strip of land in question (in rural Shetland) would have been at most a few thousand pounds.

 

[ScarboroGull]

So?

I'm just observing that NR's map of property holdings appears to differ from the RoS title plan wrt to Station Cottage. The NR version seems more cut-and-dried about the ownership of the access track past SC than the RoS title plan. I wondered what NR base their plan on and what veracity it has. I appreciate it can't be definitive (in fact neither version appears to be definitive in the case of a dispute).

 

[YorksLad12]

The one thing that does appear fairly clear is that the current owner of the cottage is not (and in law cannot be) the owner of the platform.

1) The owners of the Station Cottage genuinely believe they own the platform/track area. It is extremely unlikely that they do own the platform, and they have probably misunderstood what they were actually buying, or have made some incorrect assumptions about what they own, based on ancient documents.

What confuses me here is that, even if they do "own the platform"; as Altnabrec is a station at which trains do/should call, do they then have to maintain the platform in the same way NR and other owners of platforms on private land would have to?