*We would like to thank everyone for their support, we sincerely appreciate it, thank you* Our Gofundme is to help with the things like the survey and legal expenses. www.gofundme.com/f/588854-altnabreac-cover-up
My friend fought network Rail over them wanting to fell trees ,track side. The trees were not a danger to trains, they were ,however a valuable source of shade for the residents. Network rail are bullies ,that is it. Get them in court, find a paper that doesnt like them and give them this story. my friend eventually won and the trees were saved
I know! The 'force's opinion' as to who owns the land is IRREVELANT because the 'force' was not set up to judge in land disputes. The civil process is for land disputes. The 'force' was acting unlawfully to advance the interests of Network Rail....Biased and unlawful policing.
British Waterways tried to say they owned the land my grandparents' house was on once and then tried to charge them ground rent. It turned out they had the same solicitors and when my grandparents asked the solicitors for the deeds they totally denied they had them. Fortunately, months later my grandmother found a receipt for the deeds in an old shoe box in the attic. The police and big business are disgusting. I feel for you, the stress must be horrific.
Exactly... We have a driveway which actually says two passageways between two houses. So we own half of the drive and they own half of the drive. The neighbours used to have a fence down the centre of the driveway with both homes happy to have that. But the wording on the original deeds which are NOT on the Land registry version anyone can down load say its two passageways with" Shared access rights for any and all use" So as we have used the drive and there has been no fence down the centre since we bought the house the neighbours cannot put a fence down the centre unless we agree to it.. Even if there had been a fence before the rights of access always existed and will always exist unless both parties agree to the change. So NR has not agreed to give up any access at any point the owners of the property now cannot deny access simply because they say or prove they own the land. This is where the whole servient and dominant rights come into play for easements and access.
@@RichardVanags you are completey right but that whole paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with this situation and this property , you obviously have no idea what is going on and should probably go watch the rest of the videos and educate yourself a little before making yourself look quite silly
@@apb3251 probably because he isnt a youtube content creator and is documenting his evidence instead, you watched this one with no problem and felt the need to chip in, dont think you would have a problem with the rest to be fair mate, sounds like you maybe just want to be an ashole, its ok some people cant help it
@@wildforesthome6563 he is actually pretty much on the money. NR have access rights as they will not have given them up - they won’t have done as they have a legal duty to maintain the railway and need access to do that.
Reminds me of a property I had that had entrances from 2 streets. Discovered that the "main entrance" of many decades was not permitted.. the council chief engineer came, assessed the situation, drew a line on the plans, announced it official, and they came and put in a concrete entrance and curbing at no cost. That was in the days when councils did right by their citizens in avoiding costly, drawn - out situations.
@graemejoyce5629 - We have a similar thing. When our driveway was taken up and resurfaced, one of the guys found a copper plate dug deep into the edge of the road and our driveway. It is inscribed with "DRIVEWAY NOT FOR PUBLIC USE". On the maps it looks like a road goes to our door. I'm so glad we uncovered that!
There is usually a rule for most councils about the age of the alteration, usually if it was done over 10 years ago and you moved in like that they wont bother, not unless a load of complaints are put in about it. Something similar happened to my neighbor, they moved in about 10 years ago, previous owner built a boundary wall 10 years prior to that without planning permission, fast forward 5 years of the new neighbor and a council inspector investigated the wall and tried to get it removed. Since they could prove from the estate agent pictures it was there when they bought it, and me and the neighbor on the other side wrote a letter to say its 15 years old and built before they moved in they dropped the case and let them keep it. Not sure why the inspector wanted it gone so much, perfectly built wall, matching bricks, sandstone tops, even now at 20 years old it looks good and improves the look of the house so much.
If the Land Registry agrees with your surveyor, then you have a case. Your solicitor should confirm this via your deeds. Then, he should write to BR stating the case and warn them of legal consequences if they violate the boundary. Your surveyor should provide you with a report and a covering letter, which should be admissible as evidence in court.
@@jerry2357 To have access to the land an easement is required. The easement would have to be registered. I have an easement from the water board running along the rear of my property.
Copper is doing what he's told to do. He tries to be diplomatic. But it's easy to see he's not comfortable. But he is in a position not of his making. I think he would rather not be here.
all he has to do is up hold the law , the problem is they don't know the Law ,they are trained to be policy enforcers, they spew Acts and Stats that aren't Law, he's not comfortable because he's talking to people that know the Law better than he does and they know their rights , he's in a pickle
The cops and Armys Judges Exicutioners of the East India Company only doing as told and being diplomatic........Uniformes change over time but everything stays the same. Untill the massess finaly come together and wake up stand up stand united
The officer knew exactly what he was doing. Do not be fooled. Besides. a police officer with integrity should not follow orders they believe to be unlawful - you challenge it! He chose to follow unlawful orders. The 'force' had no authority to decide who owns land in a land dispute! That is for a Court.
@@clivewiddall3430 BTP is different to Home Office police forces because it works in a commercial environment and is fully funded by the rail industry from passenger and freight revenue.
A simple life lesson, if you beleive you are right get legal assistance immediately. Beg or borrow as much money as needed, without that you can stand there all day until you are blue in the face it will make no difference.
I suspect they don't have a legal leg to stand on, if they did they would have been able to secure an injunction by now. The real motive I imagine is money, if not let them come out and categorically state that they are not interested in money and state what their actual demands are.
@@pjmccracken go watch previous videos they have sought legal advice and they have documentation that proves that that land has been theirs all alone, in a previous vides he offered to show the police the actual boundary lines on documentation he has from the land registry and the police basically said he didn't want to see it.
you are very thick..... they have proven in court and with legal action that it IS THEIR LAND, that is the whole point.. the judge agreed with them... the Police know its their land they have seen the evidence it is their land , but now after network rail have spoken to the transport police they have gone back with another load of bullshit.. Network rail do not have any deeds to this land, this couple have the deeds to it and its also on the Land registry, that has been proven time and again also in court, and its even on the ordanance survey map as their land , it clearly shows the border , but these pair of cops are just criminals in acting for network rail as private security realy... what can the couple d o against the cops who threaten to arrest for trespass on their own land and a fking great big digger . the normal local police do not want to get involved because its a civil matter ??? what cobblers that it, to me they are threatening a nd using weapons ( arrest and the machines). local police also know network rail are doing an illegal act... go back and watch all their videos before commenting on what you clearly know nothing about
@@jamesbillington3501 That doesn't mean jack, for example part of my land the marquess of headfort and his heirs have the right to pass and repass over the lands. Not that I am expecting any of them any time soon but the bottom line is that looks like NR have a legal right to pass over the lands. My question still stands what is their ask, do they want money or just be asked nicely ?
Its quite obvious if youve watched the other videos and even if not that each statement is then concluded by the conversation* with the surveyer. End of it all is they were correct it is their land and Network Rail and British Transport police conspired against them.
@@adav2691 what I do. Turn to the person interrupting with "I sorry I missed what you said, someone rudely interrupted what you were saying". It usually works.
They're filming people trespassing and destroying their property in the moment, ita going to be mess, its not scripted, its not a TV show lol. Thats real life for you.
So NR have an easement on your property. That’s a totally different concept to ownership of said land. Ask them to provide notice prior to access and get on with life.
For Pete's sake try not to all talk at once. It is hard enough to follow this video. Are we to assume that the guy with the theodolite in tan wellies is a Surveyor AND that he agrees with your argument or not? If so then go for it but at least inform viewers what it is you are doing.
Would it not be useful for a commetary to outline the position and do a summing up at the end of the video. I have tried to watch a few episodes but find it totally impossible to understand what the issue is about and where we are at the end in the episode.
Indeed! Totally confusing, jumping all over the place, not orienting viewers as to which way the camera is pointed ! I'm sure you have a watertight case against the beaurocracy, whoever those acronyms are, but a new viewer does not have a clue of which way is south, which side of the grid you're talking about, or whether the sun will shine tomorrow!!!
Some complete morons moaning about context and not understanding what is going on when they haven't watched all the previous videos that lay out the facts... it's like watching the penultimate episode of a series or some such and saying I can't follow the story line. You can't help some people
my first time seeing any of the videos on this topic. ok, it's a little choppy, but I can follow this completely. I assume this guy making the video isn't a professional documentary maker or TH-camr - just someone desperate to get support (he has mine) so plese cut him some slack.
You are arguing who owns it and the police officer is arguing network rail has access. I watched it twice to confirm. Seems like you are arguing over different things.
Network Rail are falsely claiming to own our driveway. The police told us Network Rail told them we do not own our driveway. We do as you can see in this video! And Network Rail has been proved to be dishonest. Ian clearly says to the officer 'so Network Rail is claiming to own our driveway?' and the officer replies 'yes.' That was the issue - we repeatedly told the officers Network Rail DO NOT own our driveway and the officers abused their powers by threatening us with arrest for trespassing on our own land! Totally unlawful!
@@LizAltnabreac-u8hthey watched it twice to confirm that NR are not claiming to own your drive! I'm not sure if watching it a third time will help them, or perhaps a trip to spectators might be more helpful!😅 ...but I appreciated your attempt to fully explain to them, their clear misunderstanding of both a BTP officer and a NWR employee stating that you don't own your drive, and that senior management of the BTP force had decided with solicitors (no clarification was provided in the video by the officer as to whose solicitor it was, BTPs own solicitors or NWRs' solicitor), that NWR owned all of the driveway down the side of the cottage from the cattle grid.
I'm confused...when you see the boundary drawing, the boundary line runs down the centre of the driveway...this video merely shows a surveyor locating the southern boundary (corner...?) point only...
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h yes but the police officer is ignorant of the details, he just knows the lawyers said to clear the way. But if he's right they have access, and you're right you own it, you still can't block it right?
"You're the only one with these problems...". Mr Bates vs The Post Office was so bad I hold absolutely no trust in public bodies, especially the police. It should go to a civil court and let the lawyers decide. After writing this I feel like a complete dickhead as solicitors don't solve anything, they just keep stoking the fire until all the fuel is gone, then bill!
not really, if they can prove from this survey that their property starts anywhere in that cattle grid, then they can prove that network rail had no right to cut their chain and drive on to their property and cut their way through the bushes/trees, to get to where they wanted to go. this video proves that. so now they can hold network rail responsible for damages, and trespass and they can hold the officers for making unlawful threats for arrest, conspiracy to commit a criminal act and aiding and abetting a crime.
So when a Injustice lands on your door step are you going to become Steven Spielberg. Small.People don't have the editing skills it's something they'll learn . Like getting f over in courts .spending money on lawyers they don't have . Maybe they can ask Morgan freeman to do the narration. WOULD THAT PLEASE YOU ?
Ownership =|= access rights. I was really on your side at first, and now think you're either willfully misinterpreting the situation, or aren't full understanding it. From what is being said, they arent trying to sieze your land, theyre exercising their right to use it to perform their duties.
What part of 'Network Rail own the land from where our vehicle's parked over the cattle grid and up to the station' as stated by the BTP officers? Well, Network Rail do not own what they falsely claim to own as proved by this video! By falsely claiming to own the cattle grid and our driveway, they are trying to take our land from us...Also, from what the officer said, Network Rail also claimed to own some of the private track owned by the forestry company! Wonder what the forestry company will have to say about that...
@@zedeyejoe No, the officer said NR own the land and it was the 'force's opinion' they owned the land. NR do not own our driveway and BTP had no jurisdiction claiming they did.
Fancy buying a place where there is a dispute in progress. Pretty dumb really. Solicitors should have done their work. This pair are the AO's you hope you never live next to.
@@chriscasteel5777 Unless it has been sold to the couple legitimately as it was decided no access would be required in the future. Back to the solicitors!
And they can't take Network Rail to court because they have a legal right to access the station/platform/land. Hence why they are unable to stop Network Rail.
@@Alcluyd Please watch the videos. Network Rail has falsely claimed to OWN our driveway. They were not claiming a 'right of access.' They claimed to OWN it! Network Rail DO NOT own our driveway just like we said all along and they were warned but still proceeded to commit criminal damage and aggravated trespass with the full assistance of BTP.
@@Alcluydif network rail can send a car up and down the tracks then they can access said platform and land by rail with their machinery , they don’t need to use or damage these poor peoples land or property ! I for one think it’s disgusting how these large companies think that they can trample on the rights of the common people and land owners !!!! 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
you need to calm down , when you bought the property there must have been a deed of access to allow you access to your house . network rail may well be correct that they own the land but you must have a deed that allows you to access to your property unhindered twenty four hours a day. instead of all these videos get an engineer to do your own topographical survey and then get a solicitor to check your and network rails deeds , these are all available online . then work with network rail to get a solution you both can live with
Completely agree... the old saying "Buyer Beware" is not a saying that came about for no reason!. My money is on the deeds granting "access"... and in the end Network Rail are owned by the Government..... good luck taking on Starmer and his newly appointed hench-people!
Real Estate lawyer and new survey. The court of public opinion can't help you. Always make sure of your boundaries and any easements before buying. Building anything without a survey leads to trouble! A lawyer can send a cease and desist notice and take it to court if need be.
We have a property that a pilon sits on at the rear of our farm. The power company doesn't have any rights to our land but under the electrical code, have the right to access it to inspect and maintain it. The benefit, is that they maintain the road in there... you can make it be very beneficial if you're not so adversarial
Truly sorry you are having these issues. We have similar issues in the States. My favorite is when,as a property owner, you don’t own the sidewalks or easement but you are financially responsible for its maintenance. A few years ago the town manager (who doesn’t live in our town) decided to spray paint on sidewalks where there was a difference in the levels of each slab. We were ordered to replace (at over $300.00 for a 3 x 3 slab). There were a few we replaced but we took a concrete grinder to the rest of them. We are also responsible for the trees growing in the easement. We have no control but have to foot the bill. The system is criminal.
@@ALTNABREAC Is the argument that NR have an easement over your property? Have you checked your deed? Do they have an easement? They don't need to own the land to access it.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h I own some land where the water and electricity companies have a right of access to work on their equipment. They have to inform me first and are responsible for repairing or compensating for any damage caused. I try to work with these companies to do it when best for all parties and so far has worked well
@@stephenwade5994 We have tried our best to try and work with Network Rail to resolve things but unfortunately Network Rail are trying to do it unlawfully which is why there has been such a delay on resolving the dispute.
I am SO glad to see someone stand up to these people and fight for their rights. I am now waiting for the next installment to see the outcome. Sadly, like others have said, they may still have a right of access which is not even close to assumptions they have already made but does mean that, with given notice or in an emergency situation, they still have the right of access. I do hope that an end to this is in sight for you, even if it's not totally in your favour. The upheaval and stress caused by this kind of situation is unbelievable. Please keep your heads held high and continue to fight with dignity.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h You have been so helpful that they stopped trains calling at the station as you were hassling passengers and staff. Network Rail have a right of access to maintain the track - this is laid down in law. They will maintain the railway to keep it safe. You have been told this repeatedly and every time you stick your heads in the sand and deny people the access to the track. No doubt you will deny this as well saying that the law is being misinterpreted -it isn't, and Network Rail have a right of access.
Well done Matt, you come across as a very patient and understanding policeman, you are a credit to your employers. I’m not so sure i could be so patient dealing with this pair who are obviously trying a land grab and to monetize views. Hope they get arrested and sued for damages for obstructing police and network rail workers
Matt O'Neil acted unlawfully, abused his police powers, harassed us, threatened to arrest us on our OWN land and you give him a pat on the back.....Speaks volumes about your character. I think you will find it is NR trying to take our land from us and they and BTP will be brought to account. Stop shilling.
Just in case you have forgotten, the employers of the Police are the public. And how are they obstructing the Police, who are themselves desperately trying to make the issue into criminal trespass so they have a reason to get involved as trespass itself is a civil matter.
watch the full video, the owner asks matt if he wants to see the proof that they actually do own the driveway and that network rail has no access and matt says "no" . he doesn't care what the truth is, he went there with the intention to threaten and intimidate the land owners to allow network rail to illegal access their property. do you really want officers to be able to come to your house and threaten to arrest you if you don't let people who have to right to be there come in and start damaging your property?
@@jamesbillington3501 Thank you James. On point again! Matt O'Neil abused his police powers and was used to harass and intimidate us. He will be held to account for his wrongdoing.
There is a legal difference between ownership and access.The question is not who owns the land e.g. the driveway but whether Network Rail have an access right. If they do then they can lrgally cross the cattle grid and follow the driveway to the fprmer station. The BTP officer did use the word "access" but he seemed to confuse access with ownership.
@@smegheadGOAT It depends. For example, energy companies (electric and gas) can decide that they are going to run pipes or pylons right through a plot of land and argue that it is essential infrastructure. 9 times out of 10 the landowner can do nothing about it. Further, if a company can prove historic access (an easement) then only a court can make a ruling requiring the company to prove that such easement is still necessary. I am not saying any of this is morally right of course and ultimately I would suggest that a court is the only way to go now.
Network Rail is falsely claiming to OWN the cattle grid and our driveway and this video proves that they do not. They have not claimed to have a 'right of access.' They falsely claimed to own our driveway to gain UNLAWFUL access onto our land and used the BTP to assist them! The same officers were at our property a week before this and told us then that Network Rail told them we do not own our own driveway. Furthermore, the officer says himself in this video that Network Rail own the track from where the police vehicle was parked over the cattle grid and up to the station!
'fraid you missed the comment at 35 plus seconds.. the cop DID agree it was "ownership" as in agreeing with this "owner" he may have said access later, but he also said NR OWN it..
@Carlos-im3hn hi Carlos.. the way I see is the cattle grid spans both, the privately-owned cottage property AND the ?common ground prior to that.. the way I see it was a parallel line directly from their fence line basically.. so roughly one third of the cattle grid is owned by them, and if that IS so, they may be entitled to fence it off unless deeds state otherwise.. which I suspect they will.. but not to te extent BR say
A solicitor could advise very quickly if Network Rail have rights to access this land or not. It's odd that you're constantly trying to milk this gofundme before you've consulted a legal expert to see if you're flogging a dead horse.
@@rossco3603 it’s a blatant grift. The title plan shows clearly the road is outside of their plot. They’ve also admitted in comments on another video that their kitchen extension is built on the blue coloured part of the title plan, which Network Rail also have unhindered access through. They should pipe down before they get an order to destroy that extension.
If it was the access when you bought the property, it is still an access route. You may own the property, but denial of access is a crime in most districts. Just saying.
It's an ownership dispute. No one can access anyone's land without an access right in law. NR falsely claimed to OWN our driveway to UNLAWFULLY access our land.
Actually it isn't - if denial of access was a crime I would be allowed to walk anywhere I pleased. I cannot, ergo "denial of access" is not a crime. There are "Implied rights of access" but the OWNER of the land can and is LEGALLY ALLOWED to revoke that without reason. BECAUSE IT'S PRIVATE LAND.
@@englishruraldoggynerd Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with the Scottish Law. The law re owning land is not complicated....We own it. NR does not.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h waffle waffle waffle & more waffle. sue your conveyoncer for not informing you. Buy a property on a working railway line it is blatently obvious that railtrack will need acess to the line. Stop being so nieve
your the one waffling, network rail and btp have lost the plot, btp do not work for companies or business, they work for the public and should not be doing anything other than keeping the peace. network rail may have a right of access which the owners have not disagreed with, however they do not own the land, hence whybthere should be an formal agreement and payment from network rail with regard to accessing private land, noise, pollution, inconvenience etc,
Does who owns it matter?? There could be a right of access granted some time ago, written into the lease or deeds, without know all the details it is pointless to argue with anyone.
@@ALTNABREAC Absolutely it would matter, however I am not a lawyer or land agent, when I bought a home it was surveyed, and I knew there were no rights of use or old pathways/right of way, it appears you own part of the cattle crossing, it seems they claim they own it, but from your other videos it seems they paid former owners a fee, as someone said why pay a fee if they owned it, there may be a clause allowing access a number of times a year, or for maintenance, was the fee if paid for damage to the path, hopefully it will be sorted, different region different rules and laws, like many I am watching to see the outcome, hope you get it sorted, no one likes a bully.
@@clivewiddall3430 Nothing has been made clear, I have watched time and again, is there a right of access or covenant, where I live we have a surveyor check the site, go over the deeds, we turned down a place as it still had access to the rear, this was used for the coal man, and was still in place, both parties cannot be right, endless videos do not solve the issue, going to court or producing evidence what is allowed or not, one thing raised which I don't know is true, payments were made to the previous owner, which could be compensation for damage during access or 'rent' for continued use, until a day in court comes it appears no one knows.
@@PeterChapman-rg6grBut NWR and BTP are not arguing about only access rights! They are falsely claiming to own the drive and that the couple do not own it. That way NWR can have full access to the land and build upon it, without the couples' permission. Such an illegal ploy can of course only work of you also have the BTP in your back pocket to illegally force it through, despite it actually being a civil dispute and not a criminal matter!
The rail company most likely has right of access for repairs. You may own the property but there has to be a mature understanding of allowing the people in to do their job.
Not sure what this latest video proves, apart from possible incompetency by whoever was responsible for the legal work and conveyancing when you purchased the property.
Sorry....how does it perhaps show incompetence by the conveyancing solicitor? Which aspects in particular show incompetence as opposed to it simply being that the land purchased by the couple includes the driveway and the solicitor was not incompetent?
It proves Network Rail have acted dishonestly by falsely claiming to own our driveway. It proves that Network Rail committed criminal damage to our property and aggravated trespass by occupying our land and blocking our driveway for 3 days....Network Rail knew all along they did not own our driveway. How can you not understand what they were did?!
The dispute seems to be between ownership and access. Honestly I cannot see what all the noise is about. Scotrail need access to carry out repairs, maintenance etc. The station house owners seem to know what area of land they own but take on a selfish attitude when Scotrail use their right of access. The work they have carried out is clean and tidy and the new route will keep train passengers away from their portion of their beloved driveway and cattle grid
You know with trains since the very earliest of days...they had goods wagons and open deck wagons. On these you could put machinery like concrete mixers etc. and deliver them to a railway station on railway land and use them to make a path on railway land ... all WITHOUT setting foot on private land.. or cutting chains and forcing entry on private property..
Regardless of who owns what, you have to give access 24/7 to NR and/or their contractors. The reason your boundary stops where it does is to stop arguments of right of way. As I said before these shared accesses are the cause of many disputes. It also appears you do not own the platform, so expect a fence to be erected. Question, what has happened since the path was constructed? How many times have the contractors or NR been back since the construction of said path? Why don't you do b&b, train stops outside your door? Or did... Please show new footage since construction, thanks
What you need to realize is, when you buy a property the land itself never actually belongs to you. What you buy is a “bundle of rights.” Sometimes these rights are very comprehensive and sometimes there are limitations. Access is frequently retained by past owners in the form of easements and rights of and are not always defined on the documents of conveyance.
It is a previous owners (vendors) responsibility to declare any and all burdens on/to the property to permit due diligence. It is also the conveyancer to determina all burdens and declare findings. ( note that network rail at time of transfer also took on burdens imposed at original acquisition of the land by act of parliament on behalf of the original railway company..... in many cases perpetual lease subject to continued use. Land returns to 'owner'
One day when we were BT turned up, drove through our garden, and installed a Telephone pole at the edge of our property. This was not for us but a new Council Housing for Youths. We were given no advanced knowledge and BT destroyed our garden, a fence, and a curb. We complained but received no compensation and were advised by our solicitor not to pursue it as it would probably cost us more than we would make. What got us the most was that if they moved the post three feet from where they put it, it would have been on the new Council property and they could have accessed it from the Council property with no need whatsoever to access our land. The point is that these large companies can pretty much do what they want and there is little we can do to prevent it or receive compensation. I would say that those that do are in the minority.
A new road was going to be built near us with a roundabout to serve a new greenfield housing estate. The developers drew a map locating the road to maximise land available for new housing and the council put it out for consultation. It cut through the private property and houses on our side of the road. It never happened. but it really begs the question of who thought that first map was acceptable and how the land ownership failed to be taken into account.
Oh my goodness. Just get a full survey done and show us the map when complete. This bickering tells us nothing. Then take it to court for a final determination - less clicks that way I suppose. If your claims are valid good on you if not take the loss with grace.
If the railway thought they were right they would have done this already, obviously they have plenty of money, so why haven't they got a full survey...because they already knew the answer huh !
I do wonder why you bought this place in the first instance. I have heard a lot of contradictions about not wanting to stop people using the station but ultimately stopping works that will allow it to stay open… then hearing from yourself that there is a public right of way, but I also saw you remove a lock off the pedestrian gate in one of your videos, I know you may have a camera or sign but it’s restricting access. You also said the previous owner had problems, why did you buy it then… all seems mental to me. Maybe network rail would buy it from you and you can be happy with somewhere else.
@@ALTNABREAC No... I wouldn't have bought it knowing what you knew in the first place. "Selling" is not giving it away. The stress its clearly causing you is surely not worth it. That's unless you have some other motive and want monetary compensation for all this, I notice you have a go fund me page as well. I don't think these videos are painting you both in a good light. That's just my opinion, you are putting these videos up on TH-cam and should expect a few honest responses. I wish you both happiness in the future, that's all.
@@ALTNABREAC I've got to say - you two do yourselves no favours. I've been reading these comments - you both get pretty salty with anyone who doesn't 'support' you - and you contradict yourselves on many occasions. Why do you feel it's necessary to promote this issue on TH-cam - surely your efforts should be focused on legal channels - you do, I assume, have irrefutable evidence regarding ownership as you claim - so you can't lose - if what you tell us is all correct?
Soo... Does this all simply come down to documentation, then....!? .... Whoever can PROVE they own the land....owns the land.....!?!? .... AND, If Network Rail can PROVE they have right of access... then they have right of access.....!?!?
if you watch the full video that the clips involving the officer comes from, the land owner offers to show the police the documentation that does prove that he actually owns the land and the officer says he doesn't want to see it. it is clear that the officer doesn't care who is right and wrong, he went there to threaten the land owner with arrest if they didn't let network rail through and doesn't care who actually legally owns it.
the coiple do own the land. and network rail do not own it or have access to it.. they have land leading utpo this couples own drive and when looking in the video also own towards the tracks (left of the cattle grid where the locks were on chain), but they are not willing to smash down their own trees and use that, they want to go on this couples land fuck up their trees and damage their land..
@@jamesbillington3501The police aren’t able to inspect any legal documents, they are police not lawyers. They are there to enforce the law, prevent law breaking and de-escalate if violence is threatened. It has been determined that NR have right of access and the police are doing their job, making sure that NR can access without being illegally blocked. If a court decides NR do not have right of access then the police will turn up to stop NR taking one step onto their land. But the police aren’t going to judge that themselves, they are separated from the court system for a reason. So the paperwork is completely irrelevant to them, they don’t have the training or the skills to understand the legalese, check for forgeries etc. it’s the same reason why if they attend a baillif seizing property from a house or business, they will stand there and do nothing except prevent fights and blocked access. They don’t care you have a piece of paper saying you’re in the right, as far as they are concerned, you could have run that out of your printer and your imagination. If a judge has actually blocked the seizure of goods, you go to the court and you bring the hammer down (or, far more likely have it carefully explained to you how you didn’t understand the piece of paper)
I have to say I am not surprised. Not that I expect NR to accept the results of a professional survey. Ultimately it sounds as the home owners were completely correct on the ownership issue which leaves NR with a right of access argument only. The right of access is exactly what it implies a right to access the property for a defined purpose. Within the title deeds or registration there should be a description of what is allowed access (pedestrians only, pedestrians and vehicles, there might even be a weight restriction on the vehicles) and for what purpose - I would assume it is to allow access to the station/platforms which in principle would allow access for general maintenance. When the station house property was originally sold that would have been when a right of access should have been created. If NR lawyers failed to do that at the time, there is no right of access. If NR had previously been accessing the site following payment of a fee to the old home owner then they almost certainly do not have a right of access merely a licence to access which has probably lapsed if they have not paid fees to the new owners
Forgive me if I've misunderstood as it's not very clear. So the boundary runs to somewhere near the middle of the cattle grid and that's where it goes off at an angle to the other side of the driveway? does that mean that your fence along the southern boundary is in the wrong position and you actually own some of your neighbours garden?
from what I saw it starts to runs a little bit past the access gate around the 2/3 point of the cattle grid where their land starts however even though they don't own the road leading up to the cattle grid or the first two thirds of the cattle grid they have the right to access it to get on or off their property. Originally the house would have been part of the station at least that would be my guess back before mobile ticket purchases were a thing.
Is this dispute all about wayleave rights? I am not a legal expert, but have purchased and sold many property in Scotland over the years. As far as I am aware wayleaves remain with the land or property in perpetuity. Wayleaves are normally picked up by the buyers solicitor at time of purchase. Any information gathered then kept with the land title. Common examples are drains, electric and telephone cables, rights of access to a plot of land for development. But bigger projects such as mobile phone masts and wind turbines and it now appears access to railway stations can also come under these rules. So if the previous owner of the property agreed to a permanent right of access over the land for a single payment then those wayleave rights transfer to the new land owner. Wayleave rights over land always remain in place, which is obviously reasonable as they have paid or are paying money for the privilage of wayleave rights.. Sometimes the new owner can benefit from annual payments from wayleave rights, but obviously that is only the case if that was the method instigated at the time of the wayleave agreement. Access has to be allowd for the recipient of the wayleave. But equally the land over which they have access must not be damaged and must be maintained as per the agreement. Like I say I am not a legal expert. I have dealt with wayleave holders over my land before and never had any problems. I once dug through a mains electricity cable on my land, they fixed it at their cost, because they had not made me aware of the cable. In this case, all that needs to be done is for everyone to sit down with the paperwork. And agree what was covered in the wayleave agreement with the previous owner. That agreement is a legal document and can't be ignored or broken. It should reside with the title deeds Lets get the station open again. Thanks.
There is separate legislation that covers this situation that would allow the right to access private land in an emergency! Was building a pathway an emergency! So your comment is irrelevant. The tracks are checked every Sunday by Network Rail - please see video showing the rail car they use.
If we go back a bit and ask the question "Why did they pay the previous tenant if they already owned the land ? " I'm only 3 minutes in to the video so might have missed something.
This is a VERY good point Not sure how they’d argue this point in court as the payments to the previous owner would surely evidence them not owning the land 🤔
the time for arguing is over, and this needs to go to court now for EVERYONES benefit... let the court hear the surveyors information, and allow them to make a judgement. as well as setting a proper access agreement for NR.... Clearly NR need access to their assets on the station, and from the look of some of the previous videos that access was a mutually satisfying agreement between all parties. but likewais the land is yours, and you own it, so you also have rights.... the courts are the ultimate arbiter, and ultimately the final solution! While clearly the land is your own, as it stands NEITHER side comes out of this looking good we dont know what historic agreements NR have in place for one. I understand court costs money, money you stand to loose.... but its the only way! and for the record, im on NEITHER sie at the moment. the property owners own the land fair enough, that much is clear, but like I say... NR has a right of access to the station, and statutory powers so its 50/50 IMO! that said, BTP shouldnt be getting involved unless a crime has been comitted, and getting a court order would add weight to any claim against them!
I agree, from what i can figure out the station was closed and now it is being reopened. The station house and the land was sold which means that right of access should no longer apply. If the railway wants to reopen the station they should renegociate access.
Not real police. Police Scotland would not respond to their requests for assistance as they don't have resources to deploy. Snp administration have stripped police Scotland of funding.
@@niallmackie51 British Transport Police have all the powers of any other police officer. They are separate from, say, Police Scotland and are able to operate across the whole of the UK.
Interesting! Who was the surveyor representing, and what data was he using to determine the exact boundary position? Does this now define ownership and the right of access to the track between the cattle grid, past your house and to the platform? What is the line of the Eastern boundary - at the treeline, in front or it, or in the woodland beyond?
We asked the surveyor to come and clarify what we already knew about our property ownership. He was using GPS technology which was the most accurate that can be used for surveying, which is to just a few millimeters. Yes I can confirm that it is now clearly defined, the ownership and right of access from the cattle grid to the platform (Our Driveway)
I told you weeks ago it was in the middle of the road just based off the ScotLIS information but I'm sure you knew that anyway, so you were blocking their access to their land down the one side of the cattle grid and they had every right to cut the lock off their property. I'm sure they'll thank you later for videoing it all for them so they can build the case against you.
Did you miss the part where the surveyor pegs the eastern side of the cattle grid......! NR do not own the cattle grid OR our driveway. We own around a third of the cattle grid and the forestry company owns the rest! NR acted unlawfully by causing criminal damage to our lock and chain and committing aggravated trespass and the BTP aided and abetted those criminal acts. They will be held to account because THEY ARE NOT above the law.
I think you might need glasses or didn't watch the survey being done, he added the spike boundary post to the side of the cattle grid, so they were right about owning it.
@@dianawoodall9897Am I the only one that listens to things? The surveyor said he would attach a marker and make a measurement off the nail (screw in this case). That would indicicate that the boundary corner will be a certain distance from the nail (screw in this case) putting a corner a certain distance from the nail into the cattle grid as would indicate on the plans. These videos have been heavily edited to try and provide a narrative that they want to tell instead of putting the whole survey online like a normal person with nothing to hide would do.
The surveyor needs to hold the survey staff perpendicular. The top of the staff is the point being located not the pointed end. So if it is slanted the point is Not on the boundary. Also as only half of the drive is ‘owned’ by someone then they can only access along that half so why in hell where they walking all over your land when you asked them not to.
I use this equipment daily. The GPS receivers have tilt sensors that allow the data collector to compensate for the rod being out of plumb. You sacrifice maybe a cm or two of accuracy doing this.
Step 1 - survey establishes correct boundary eg down the middle of the driveway. Step 2 - you erect a fence on that boundary- even just a simple wire fence. Step 3 - clarify if right of way exists for the rail authorities to gain access. If no access rights exist then…… Step 4 - lay charges of criminal damage against anyone who destroys the fence . Step 5 - if right of way exists for the rail authorities just suck it up.
Each party gets a surveyor to do a survey. Now if there are discrepancies ask both parties to justify their interpretation...why are there discrepancies? The truth is in there somewhere....
Somebody effed up the title deeds at the Network Rail and your solicitor did not check the deeds properly. This mess probably began when NR sold off the land in the first place many years ago. The hysteria from the landowners does not help them. Any "grey area" is going to be decided against you now. If you piss off the court when it finally gets there in the same way, any benefit of the doubt will go against you again.
Boundaries and rights of access are totally different things. A right of access does not mean ownership - however it is likely that they have right of access in perpetuity and there is little that can be done to prevent it just like having a rambling path running across your land . If the damage your drive or anything else they have to make good
No. NR are not claiming to have a 'right of access in perpetuity' (which they don't have anyway), they are falsely claiming to own the cattle grid and our driveway and they do not as proved by this video.
If NR have the rights they claim, they can present it in a civil court, the legal method not spurious bullying, and obtain an injunction. That would end all dispute & they could probably get costs. No need to send police officer/s, whose job is to uphold the law, not adjudicate in civil disputes. So why haven't they?🤔 They've already spent thousands on sending various un-knowledgeable officers, managers and workmen with cutting equipment etc.into an area of civil dispute. If their claim is so straightforward, it will be over in no time with no need to keep dispatching people who should have better things to do.
@@derekfaeberwick Clearly, they haven't. Once an injunction is served, the police attending would carry a copy, given they work for NR, and present it. What the police would NOT do, is refer to 'what we were told by...' Proper, signed documents. That's what is known as due process. Given there's been no official warnings or charges laid, it's not what you claim. Are you an 'interested party' or somebody with a grudge?. My interest is only observational. Unfortunately, big corporations have a habit of attempting to bully people they have no case against. I was similarly threatened, many years ago, regarding a non-existent contract. That didn't stop the threats by a barrister, who continued to threaten even after I requested a signed copy of said contract. I knew there wasn't one. The threats continued right to the point I could clearly claim harrassment and threatened to sue for damages - never heard from them again. 'Show me the legal documents' is the only response - assertions are worth zero.
@@ALTNABREAC I obviously don't know the legal situation for certain, however, it's clearly encumbent on them to provide documented evidence, to resolve the issue, if they believe they have it. It's almost impossible for private citizens to take out a case against a corporation, based entirely on hearsay. But it's clearly a misuse of the police to pursue a civil case, on behalf of a corporation, against a private citizen. It's irregular and suspicious. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, however, my understanding is, if there are official, registered, current documents, they should provide all 'interested' parties, i.e. you and the police, with copies. You cannot challenge something nobody appears to have registered copies of. I'm not sure who you would complain about misuse of police time to but they may be liable, in a compensation claim, if they fail to rectify the situation promptly and in a legitimate manner. This is also the fastest way to resolve issues and deal with what needs to be done - including the reopening of the station in the event it's then plausible.
We were the main users of the station! It will only re-open IF Network Rail do things the right and lawful way. Stop trolling because you've been proved wrong AGAIN.
What are you arguing about ? Why don't you let them do the maintenance work they need to do to the railway. You are living in the old station, the trains go past the platform and your windows. The railway will always have maintained right of access, whether you like it or not !!
@@richard21995 I think someone screwed up when they sold the station to private owners. They should have kept that bit of land or had an arrangement to allow access. But they didn't. Hence the problem. If it was me I would have offered to allow access for a price and had it in legal documentation.
@@barrymayson2492 They can have access. Look up the Wayleaves law. We allow the electric company onto our land to service their cables that run across our land. No issue with it. Some people love to be stubborn.
@@JohnDoe-vj5bb I don't think they wanted to deny NR access to create the path. I understand the issue arose because NR randomly decided to get the British Transport Police to arrest them for criminal trespass, just by virtue of them accessing their house via the self same driveway. It is a case of a bullying organisation not employing reasonableness in the first instance. All they had to do was ask nicely and offer any remediation and none of this would have been an issue.
1:49 The police are for criminal purposes only and should not be getting involved in a civil matter of land registry. This is a pure intimidation tactic, you should just tell the British Transport Police Constable who’s wages are paid by #networkrail to abide by his oath as a Constable and leave your property as he is trespassing and he can go back to his bosses who are also paid by network rail and tell them that if network rail want access they will have to go through the courts system like everyone else
😂 British Transport Police are police and funded by the taxpayer and not Network Rail. He's there because higher ups have looked at old plans, checked the land registry which should hold up to date land maps. Of course it's unfair that this has happened, but if you're buying property within a rural area that has access to the countryside, always, always do your own research
@@Msdinomite every land purchase I have ever heard of includes a land survey and steel marker posts. This land owners lawyer should have made sure this was done to protect the landowner from later claims like this.
Did they just need access to do work on their utility property? Why are you being a jerk? There is not much back story. Did they destroy any of your property? Other than vegetation and ground. If they did, did they repair it? Did they go away after they did their repair? Did they damage the cattle gate?
Why did you ever buy the property in such a wonderful location if you didnt want the existing railway to operate as it has done for a hundred years or so Most people would be very envious to live in such beautiful isolation and get on with their neighbours-its called being a community If you didnt want that why did you ever move from your southern urban environments? Go fund me-what a joke-i wouldnt give you a penny when all you want to do is disrupt the rural idyll in the area you have chosen to move to. I once owned a property adjacent to the West Coast Main Line and then found railtrack had access to my garden as a culvert ran under it. When the time came that it needed repair Railtrack could not have been more helpful-Firstly by carefully removing my fence and once the job was done used a cultivator to replace my vegetable garden,replace my fence and then put up a protective metal fence outside my existing fence (on their land and at their expense) to add security to both my property and the adjacent railway line .Sorry but you guys seriously need to get a life!
I'm confused by a lot of your videos but this one takes the biscuit - so, Uh! Oh! I CAN'T guess who 'owns' the cattle grid entrance !! What I get from it is the surveyor stating you own 'about' a 1/3rd of it? If that's the case who owns the rest? And if they were to get bolshy too could they stop you accessing their part and hence prevent you using yours?? As I say that video just adds more confusion to the matter.....
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h Fine. So what happens if the forestry decide to block their two thirds of the cattle grid and stop your access? Do you then argue that you have a right of access which I believe NR claim for your part of the grid/driveway?? I really don't envy you with this problem...
@@keefr22 The forestry cannot prevent our access to our own driveway as we have an heritable and irredeemable servitude right of access over their land to access our home. NR did not argue they had a 'right of access' over our driveway, they falsely claim to OWN our driveway. They've been proved wrong.
@@TheTacticalHaggis There are no easements that's why. And Network Rail is not claiming to have an 'easement' over our land, they're falsely claiming to own our driveway.
Thank James, happy sailing. I love the look of sailing, I've got a real appreciation and fascination of yachts lately, I watch quite a few videos on youtube, like Sailing Ocean Melody. Hope I can go on a sailing yacht one day.
@@minixtvbox Why do you make such a statement - 'solicitors don't act for their clients' - so tens of thousands of people happily pay their lawyers for nothing? OK.
NR has caused the station to be closed and it remains closed because NR are acting unlawfully and unreasonably. This is the sole reason matters have been delayed for so long. I suggest you complain direct to NR.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h what laws have they broken? They are very likely to have given you good notice of any works so that is that box ticked. They will make good any damage they cause to the access road. Sounds like they are the reasonable ones acting within the law of the land - perhaps not the law of the cottage but hey ho, I know which wins.
![แฉกลโกงงานวัด 2024 [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.106 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/taC5dpP3HXA/mqdefault.jpg)
*We would like to thank everyone for their support, we sincerely appreciate it, thank you*
Our Gofundme is to help with the things like the survey and legal expenses.
www.gofundme.com/f/588854-altnabreac-cover-up
My friend fought network Rail over them wanting to fell trees ,track side. The trees were not a danger to trains, they were ,however a valuable source of shade for the residents. Network rail are bullies ,that is it. Get them in court, find a paper that doesnt like them and give them this story. my friend eventually won and the trees were saved
Hi I am very pleased for you both ,showing them all for who and what they are. Julie ann
Why are they sending a copper when they should be sending a solicitor? It's nothing to do with policing!
@@EricMoxey-vl2qf Thank you
@@ddoherty5956 Exactly, they were using them against us unlawfully.
Since when is the rights of land ownership a police matter
I know! The 'force's opinion' as to who owns the land is IRREVELANT because the 'force' was not set up to judge in land disputes. The civil process is for land disputes. The 'force' was acting unlawfully to advance the interests of Network Rail....Biased and unlawful policing.
Exactly
It goes back to the Crown, slaves are not allowed to own property.
Since it became a corporate service and no longer a force. Those at the top must've thought that there was something in it for them.
Because it's a large corporation using hired goons to harass and intimidate!!
British Waterways tried to say they owned the land my grandparents' house was on once and then tried to charge them ground rent. It turned out they had the same solicitors and when my grandparents asked the solicitors for the deeds they totally denied they had them. Fortunately, months later my grandmother found a receipt for the deeds in an old shoe box in the attic. The police and big business are disgusting. I feel for you, the stress must be horrific.
Thank you for your support. I'm so glad your grandmother found the evidence! Truth always prevails!
Did the solicitors hand the deeds back once they'd been shown the receipt
Awesome comment thanks, nice to hear your grandmother found the receipt 👍
I'd be reporting the solicitors, make their life difficult.
They're all part of the same criminal gang freemasons.
You need a solicitor rather than a TH-cam channel. Ownership and right of access are different things.
You need to watch all the videos
Exactly... We have a driveway which actually says two passageways between two houses. So we own half of the drive and they own half of the drive. The neighbours used to have a fence down the centre of the driveway with both homes happy to have that. But the wording on the original deeds which are NOT on the Land registry version anyone can down load say its two passageways with" Shared access rights for any and all use" So as we have used the drive and there has been no fence down the centre since we bought the house the neighbours cannot put a fence down the centre unless we agree to it.. Even if there had been a fence before the rights of access always existed and will always exist unless both parties agree to the change. So NR has not agreed to give up any access at any point the owners of the property now cannot deny access simply because they say or prove they own the land. This is where the whole servient and dominant rights come into play for easements and access.
@@RichardVanags you are completey right but that whole paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with this situation and this property , you obviously have no idea what is going on and should probably go watch the rest of the videos and educate yourself a little before making yourself look quite silly
@@apb3251 probably because he isnt a youtube content creator and is documenting his evidence instead, you watched this one with no problem and felt the need to chip in, dont think you would have a problem with the rest to be fair mate, sounds like you maybe just want to be an ashole, its ok some people cant help it
@@wildforesthome6563 he is actually pretty much on the money. NR have access rights as they will not have given them up - they won’t have done as they have a legal duty to maintain the railway and need access to do that.
Reminds me of a property I had that had entrances from 2 streets. Discovered that the "main entrance" of many decades was not permitted.. the council chief engineer came, assessed the situation, drew a line on the plans, announced it official, and they came and put in a concrete entrance and curbing at no cost.
That was in the days when councils did right by their citizens in avoiding costly, drawn - out situations.
@graemejoyce5629 - We have a similar thing. When our driveway was taken up and resurfaced, one of the guys found a copper plate dug deep into the edge of the road and our driveway. It is inscribed with "DRIVEWAY NOT FOR PUBLIC USE". On the maps it looks like a road goes to our door. I'm so glad we uncovered that!
The end is in sight....... nearly. Many congratulations for standing YOUR ground!!
There is usually a rule for most councils about the age of the alteration, usually if it was done over 10 years ago and you moved in like that they wont bother, not unless a load of complaints are put in about it. Something similar happened to my neighbor, they moved in about 10 years ago, previous owner built a boundary wall 10 years prior to that without planning permission, fast forward 5 years of the new neighbor and a council inspector investigated the wall and tried to get it removed. Since they could prove from the estate agent pictures it was there when they bought it, and me and the neighbor on the other side wrote a letter to say its 15 years old and built before they moved in they dropped the case and let them keep it. Not sure why the inspector wanted it gone so much, perfectly built wall, matching bricks, sandstone tops, even now at 20 years old it looks good and improves the look of the house so much.
Yeah, nowadays they charge over £500 JUST to report an overgrown hedge!! Don't believe me? Go look it up on your LA's website!
thats when they worked as a service, not a business isnt it.
If the Land Registry agrees with your surveyor, then you have a case. Your solicitor should confirm this via your deeds. Then, he should write to BR stating the case and warn them of legal consequences if they violate the boundary. Your surveyor should provide you with a report and a covering letter, which should be admissible as evidence in court.
@@majorbruster5916 It might not be a question of ownership, but of right of access.
yeah, despite what's been said, I think that NR's actual stance on this is likely that they have access rights to the land, not that they own it
based on the vid they uploaded today, I think my previous comment is actually wrong
@@jerry2357 To have access to the land an easement is required. The easement would have to be registered. I have an easement from the water board running along the rear of my property.
@@FACEJJ BTP officer issuing that NR claim they own the driveway, not that they are claiming right of access.
Copper is doing what he's told to do. He tries to be diplomatic. But it's easy to see he's not comfortable. But he is in a position not of his making. I think he would rather not be here.
all he has to do is up hold the law , the problem is they don't know the Law ,they are trained to be policy enforcers, they spew Acts and Stats that aren't Law, he's not comfortable because he's talking to people that know the Law better than he does and they know their rights , he's in a pickle
The cops and Armys Judges Exicutioners of the East India Company only doing as told and being diplomatic........Uniformes change over time but everything stays the same. Untill the massess finaly come together and wake up stand up stand united
The officer knew exactly what he was doing. Do not be fooled. Besides. a police officer with integrity should not follow orders they believe to be unlawful - you challenge it! He chose to follow unlawful orders. The 'force' had no authority to decide who owns land in a land dispute! That is for a Court.
Agreed!
Lots of people in Nuremberg trials literally said the same thing
Of course BTP are going to do as they are told by network rail as they are funded by them
Which is funded by the taxpayers
@@clivewiddall3430 BTP is different to Home Office police forces because it works in a commercial environment and is fully funded by the rail industry from passenger and freight revenue.
Bullshit
Since right of access is denied by bloody minded residents!!!!
If you live in a railway station, don't be surprised if the railway company owns the access to it.
A simple life lesson, if you beleive you are right get legal assistance immediately. Beg or borrow as much money as needed, without that you can stand there all day until you are blue in the face it will make no difference.
I suspect they don't have a legal leg to stand on, if they did they would have been able to secure an injunction by now. The real motive I imagine is money, if not let them come out and categorically state that they are not interested in money and state what their actual demands are.
@@pjmccracken go watch previous videos they have sought legal advice and they have documentation that proves that that land has been theirs all alone, in a previous vides he offered to show the police the actual boundary lines on documentation he has from the land registry and the police basically said he didn't want to see it.
you are very thick..... they have proven in court and with legal action that it IS THEIR LAND, that is the whole point.. the judge agreed with them... the Police know its their land they have seen the evidence it is their land , but now after network rail have spoken to the transport police they have gone back with another load of bullshit.. Network rail do not have any deeds to this land, this couple have the deeds to it and its also on the Land registry, that has been proven time and again also in court, and its even on the ordanance survey map as their land , it clearly shows the border , but these pair of cops are just criminals in acting for network rail as private security realy... what can the couple d o against the cops who threaten to arrest for trespass on their own land and a fking great big digger . the normal local police do not want to get involved because its a civil matter ??? what cobblers that it, to me they are threatening a nd using weapons ( arrest and the machines). local police also know network rail are doing an illegal act... go back and watch all their videos before commenting on what you clearly know nothing about
@@jamesbillington3501 That doesn't mean jack, for example part of my land the marquess of headfort and his heirs have the right to pass and repass over the lands. Not that I am expecting any of them any time soon but the bottom line is that looks like NR have a legal right to pass over the lands. My question still stands what is their ask, do they want money or just be asked nicely ?
You notice that the cop assumes that the railroad is telling the truth and starts from that assumption.
The golden rule…do not talk to the police.
wise words ❤
How will saying nothing move things forward?
Second golden rule; don't trust them!
@@ALTNABREAClol, don’t you live with one
@@Dean-t9g - It stops them trying to screw you over /VOE
Too disjointed to follow and we never get to see or hear what the surveyor is doing. Therefore, not convincing.
Simple really of you can understand Scottish Land Law
Its quite obvious if youve watched the other videos and even if not that each statement is then concluded by the conversation* with the surveyer. End of it all is they were correct it is their land and Network Rail and British Transport police conspired against them.
It looks to me as though the surveyor is showing that the boundary stops less than half way across the cattle grid.
Tell her to stop butting in!!! Speak one at a time.
@@adav2691 what I do. Turn to the person interrupting with "I sorry I missed what you said, someone rudely interrupted what you were saying".
It usually works.
They're filming people trespassing and destroying their property in the moment, ita going to be mess, its not scripted, its not a TV show lol. Thats real life for you.
Typical Doos of poes, running thier mouth is all they good for at best of times..
So NR have an easement on your property. That’s a totally different concept to ownership of said land. Ask them to provide notice prior to access and get on with life.
An easement would be recorded, but there's no record of an easement.
For Pete's sake try not to all talk at once. It is hard enough to follow this video. Are we to assume that the guy with the theodolite in tan wellies is a Surveyor AND that he agrees with your argument or not? If so then go for it but at least inform viewers what it is you are doing.
Would it not be useful for a commetary to outline the position and do a summing up at the end of the video. I have tried to watch a few episodes but find it totally impossible to understand what the issue is about and where we are at the end in the episode.
Indeed! Totally confusing, jumping all over the place, not orienting viewers as to which way the camera is pointed ! I'm sure you have a watertight case against the beaurocracy, whoever those acronyms are, but a new viewer does not have a clue of which way is south, which side of the grid you're talking about, or whether the sun will shine tomorrow!!!
@@BJHolloway1 100% zero context at all in the 2 videos I have watched.
If you want people to support you then tell us what is going on.
Some complete morons moaning about context and not understanding what is going on when they haven't watched all the previous videos that lay out the facts... it's like watching the penultimate episode of a series or some such and saying I can't follow the story line. You can't help some people
my first time seeing any of the videos on this topic. ok, it's a little choppy, but I can follow this completely. I assume this guy making the video isn't a professional documentary maker or TH-camr - just someone desperate to get support (he has mine) so plese cut him some slack.
Somebody needs to buy this guy a $30 baffle for the wind.
I never heard anybody farting in the video!
😂😂😂 Underated comment
They use £ pounds not $dollars!
Are you that sensitive to a little bit of wind noise.. pathetic.
Right of access iz not ownership. The same as footpath and bridleways are accessible to general public
You are arguing who owns it and the police officer is arguing network rail has access. I watched it twice to confirm. Seems like you are arguing over different things.
Network Rail are falsely claiming to own our driveway. The police told us Network Rail told them we do not own our driveway. We do as you can see in this video! And Network Rail has been proved to be dishonest. Ian clearly says to the officer 'so Network Rail is claiming to own our driveway?' and the officer replies 'yes.' That was the issue - we repeatedly told the officers Network Rail DO NOT own our driveway and the officers abused their powers by threatening us with arrest for trespassing on our own land! Totally unlawful!
@@LizAltnabreac-u8hthey watched it twice to confirm that NR are not claiming to own your drive! I'm not sure if watching it a third time will help them, or perhaps a trip to spectators might be more helpful!😅 ...but I appreciated your attempt to fully explain to them, their clear misunderstanding of both a BTP officer and a NWR employee stating that you don't own your drive, and that senior management of the BTP force had decided with solicitors (no clarification was provided in the video by the officer as to whose solicitor it was, BTPs own solicitors or NWRs' solicitor), that NWR owned all of the driveway down the side of the cottage from the cattle grid.
I'm confused...when you see the boundary drawing, the boundary line runs down the centre of the driveway...this video merely shows a surveyor locating the southern boundary (corner...?) point only...
@@_Ben4810 Did you miss the part when the surveyor pegs in the post on the eastern side to the cattle grid? Towards the end of the video.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h yes but the police officer is ignorant of the details, he just knows the lawyers said to clear the way. But if he's right they have access, and you're right you own it, you still can't block it right?
Are you the same people prosecuted for obstructing a train?
Smacks of Post Office behaviour.
"You're the only one with these problems...". Mr Bates vs The Post Office was so bad I hold absolutely no trust in public bodies, especially the police. It should go to a civil court and let the lawyers decide. After writing this I feel like a complete dickhead as solicitors don't solve anything, they just keep stoking the fire until all the fuel is gone, then bill!
Need to see the rest of the survey out come
@@clivewiddall3430 Not really. The bit in question was the bit we saw.
not really, if they can prove from this survey that their property starts anywhere in that cattle grid, then they can prove that network rail had no right to cut their chain and drive on to their property and cut their way through the bushes/trees, to get to where they wanted to go. this video proves that. so now they can hold network rail responsible for damages, and trespass and they can hold the officers for making unlawful threats for arrest, conspiracy to commit a criminal act and aiding and abetting a crime.
@@marcuscoquer5958 they still have too battle it out with NR
This video is all over the place and so unorganised
here watch this first th-cam.com/play/PLabd3rTMGZkJ7P8T3cjmgspLQALuL-g6j.html
I found it very hard to follow.
So when a Injustice lands on your door step are you going to become Steven Spielberg.
Small.People don't have the editing skills it's something they'll learn .
Like getting f over in courts .spending money on lawyers they don't have .
Maybe they can ask Morgan freeman to do the narration.
WOULD THAT PLEASE YOU ?
@@justindawson6724 You need to calm down!
@@justindawson6724
I'd get a solicitor personally.
Ownership =|= access rights.
I was really on your side at first, and now think you're either willfully misinterpreting the situation, or aren't full understanding it.
From what is being said, they arent trying to sieze your land, theyre exercising their right to use it to perform their duties.
What part of 'Network Rail own the land from where our vehicle's parked over the cattle grid and up to the station' as stated by the BTP officers? Well, Network Rail do not own what they falsely claim to own as proved by this video! By falsely claiming to own the cattle grid and our driveway, they are trying to take our land from us...Also, from what the officer said, Network Rail also claimed to own some of the private track owned by the forestry company! Wonder what the forestry company will have to say about that...
If you are not on our side now, you never was!
@@ALTNABREAC you never "was”? I hope your understanding of law is better than your grammar 😉
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h No the police officer said NR had 'right of access' which they probably do. Only you who are talking about 'owning land'.
@@zedeyejoe No, the officer said NR own the land and it was the 'force's opinion' they owned the land. NR do not own our driveway and BTP had no jurisdiction claiming they did.
Fancy buying a place where there is a dispute in progress. Pretty dumb really. Solicitors should have done their work. This pair are the AO's you hope you never live next to.
I can't understand what this dispute is about. I thought the rail companies had right of access over any land to maintain the network and fences.
No you know you just answered your own question. They dont have a right
@@chriscasteel5777 Unless it has been sold to the couple legitimately as it was decided no access would be required in the future. Back to the solicitors!
Time to take them to court now for trespassing and criminal damage plus the stress to yourselfs !!!!
They can’t claim trespass until the boundary has been determined and ratified in court.
And they can't take Network Rail to court because they have a legal right to access the station/platform/land. Hence why they are unable to stop Network Rail.
@@Alcluyd Please watch the videos. Network Rail has falsely claimed to OWN our driveway. They were not claiming a 'right of access.' They claimed to OWN it! Network Rail DO NOT own our driveway just like we said all along and they were warned but still proceeded to commit criminal damage and aggravated trespass with the full assistance of BTP.
@@Alcluydif network rail can send a car up and down the tracks then they can access said platform and land by rail with their machinery , they don’t need to use or damage these poor peoples land or property ! I for one think it’s disgusting how these large companies think that they can trample on the rights of the common people and land owners !!!! 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
@@Alcluyd It's nothing to do access you shill
you need to calm down , when you bought the property there must have been a deed of access to allow you access to your house . network rail may well be correct that they own the land but you must have a deed that allows you to access to your property unhindered twenty four hours a day. instead of all these videos get an engineer to do your own topographical survey and then get a solicitor to check your and network rails deeds , these are all available online . then work with network rail to get a solution you both can live with
Completely agree... the old saying "Buyer Beware" is not a saying that came about for no reason!. My money is on the deeds granting "access"... and in the end Network Rail are owned by the Government..... good luck taking on Starmer and his newly appointed hench-people!
Ahh, this might be it, I was thinking it was the other way around that NR claimed they had a right of access but yes could be the other way around.
Real Estate lawyer and new survey. The court of public opinion can't help you. Always make sure of your boundaries and any easements before buying. Building anything without a survey leads to trouble! A lawyer can send a cease and desist notice and take it to court if need be.
Nah - this video screams 'victim' - but hey - gotta sensationalise it and put it on youtube.
We have a property that a pilon sits on at the rear of our farm. The power company doesn't have any rights to our land but under the electrical code, have the right to access it to inspect and maintain it. The benefit, is that they maintain the road in there... you can make it be very beneficial if you're not so adversarial
Truly sorry you are having these issues. We have similar issues in the States. My favorite is when,as a property owner, you don’t own the sidewalks or easement but you are financially responsible for its maintenance. A few years ago the town manager (who doesn’t live in our town) decided to spray paint on sidewalks where there was a difference in the levels of each slab. We were ordered to replace (at over $300.00 for a 3 x 3 slab). There were a few we replaced but we took a concrete grinder to the rest of them. We are also responsible for the trees growing in the easement. We have no control but have to foot the bill. The system is criminal.
looking forward to getting to the bottom of this in maybe another 50 episodes😀
🤣Funny
@@ALTNABREAC Is the argument that NR have an easement over your property?
Have you checked your deed? Do they have an easement?
They don't need to own the land to access it.
Even if you own the land , they still could have a right of access
If they had a right of access, they would not falsely claim to own our driveway to gain unlawful access.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h I own some land where the water and electricity companies have a right of access to work on their equipment. They have to inform me first and are responsible for repairing or compensating for any damage caused. I try to work with these companies to do it when best for all parties and so far has worked well
@@stephenwade5994 We have tried our best to try and work with Network Rail to resolve things but unfortunately Network Rail are trying to do it unlawfully which is why there has been such a delay on resolving the dispute.
I am SO glad to see someone stand up to these people and fight for their rights. I am now waiting for the next installment to see the outcome. Sadly, like others have said, they may still have a right of access which is not even close to assumptions they have already made but does mean that, with given notice or in an emergency situation, they still have the right of access. I do hope that an end to this is in sight for you, even if it's not totally in your favour. The upheaval and stress caused by this kind of situation is unbelievable. Please keep your heads held high and continue to fight with dignity.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h You have been so helpful that they stopped trains calling at the station as you were hassling passengers and staff. Network Rail have a right of access to maintain the track - this is laid down in law. They will maintain the railway to keep it safe. You have been told this repeatedly and every time you stick your heads in the sand and deny people the access to the track. No doubt you will deny this as well saying that the law is being misinterpreted -it isn't, and Network Rail have a right of access.
Well done Matt, you come across as a very patient and understanding policeman, you are a credit to your employers. I’m not so sure i could be so patient dealing with this pair who are obviously trying a land grab and to monetize views. Hope they get arrested and sued for damages for obstructing police and network rail workers
Matt O'Neil acted unlawfully, abused his police powers, harassed us, threatened to arrest us on our OWN land and you give him a pat on the back.....Speaks volumes about your character. I think you will find it is NR trying to take our land from us and they and BTP will be brought to account. Stop shilling.
Just in case you have forgotten, the employers of the Police are the public. And how are they obstructing the Police, who are themselves desperately trying to make the issue into criminal trespass so they have a reason to get involved as trespass itself is a civil matter.
watch the full video, the owner asks matt if he wants to see the proof that they actually do own the driveway and that network rail has no access and matt says "no" . he doesn't care what the truth is, he went there with the intention to threaten and intimidate the land owners to allow network rail to illegal access their property. do you really want officers to be able to come to your house and threaten to arrest you if you don't let people who have to right to be there come in and start damaging your property?
@@jamesbillington3501 Thank you James. On point again! Matt O'Neil abused his police powers and was used to harass and intimidate us. He will be held to account for his wrongdoing.
There is a legal difference between ownership and access.The question is not who owns the land e.g. the driveway but whether Network Rail have an access right. If they do then they can lrgally cross the cattle grid and follow the driveway to the fprmer station. The BTP officer did use the word "access" but he seemed to confuse access with ownership.
no, the public have a footpath right of way and not network-rail
@@smegheadGOAT It depends. For example, energy companies (electric and gas) can decide that they are going to run pipes or pylons right through a plot of land and argue that it is essential infrastructure. 9 times out of 10 the landowner can do nothing about it. Further, if a company can prove historic access (an easement) then only a court can make a ruling requiring the company to prove that such easement is still necessary. I am not saying any of this is morally right of course and ultimately I would suggest that a court is the only way to go now.
Network Rail is falsely claiming to OWN the cattle grid and our driveway and this video proves that they do not. They have not claimed to have a 'right of access.' They falsely claimed to own our driveway to gain UNLAWFUL access onto our land and used the BTP to assist them! The same officers were at our property a week before this and told us then that Network Rail told them we do not own our own driveway. Furthermore, the officer says himself in this video that Network Rail own the track from where the police vehicle was parked over the cattle grid and up to the station!
'fraid you missed the comment at 35 plus seconds.. the cop DID agree it was "ownership" as in agreeing with this "owner" he may have said access later, but he also said NR OWN it..
@Carlos-im3hn hi Carlos.. the way I see is the cattle grid spans both, the privately-owned cottage property AND the ?common ground prior to that.. the way I see it was a parallel line directly from their fence line basically.. so roughly one third of the cattle grid is owned by them, and if that IS so, they may be entitled to fence it off unless deeds state otherwise.. which I suspect they will.. but not to te extent BR say
A solicitor could advise very quickly if Network Rail have rights to access this land or not. It's odd that you're constantly trying to milk this gofundme before you've consulted a legal expert to see if you're flogging a dead horse.
@@rossco3603 it’s a blatant grift. The title plan shows clearly the road is outside of their plot. They’ve also admitted in comments on another video that their kitchen extension is built on the blue coloured part of the title plan, which Network Rail also have unhindered access through. They should pipe down before they get an order to destroy that extension.
If it was the access when you bought the property, it is still an access route. You may own the property, but denial of access is a crime in most districts. Just saying.
It's an ownership dispute. No one can access anyone's land without an access right in law. NR falsely claimed to OWN our driveway to UNLAWFULLY access our land.
Actually it isn't - if denial of access was a crime I would be allowed to walk anywhere I pleased. I cannot, ergo "denial of access" is not a crime. There are "Implied rights of access" but the OWNER of the land can and is LEGALLY ALLOWED to revoke that without reason. BECAUSE IT'S PRIVATE LAND.
@@rafezetter8003 I think he means denial of access if that access lawfully exists - not just randomly deciding you have right of access anywhere.
People are forgetting that Scottish law applies here, which people haven’t realised. Including Karen & Ken.
@@englishruraldoggynerd Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with the Scottish Law. The law re owning land is not complicated....We own it. NR does not.
Just more waffle from your selves .
only telling 1/3 of the truth
Truth from us. Truth always overcomes lies.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h waffle waffle waffle & more waffle. sue your conveyoncer for not informing you. Buy a property on a working railway line it is blatently obvious that railtrack will need acess to the line.
Stop being so nieve
@@seeMEonONLYFANS Our conveyancing solicitor did inform us we OWN our driveway so why sue them!
@@seeMEonONLYFANSwho is nieve?
your the one waffling, network rail and btp have lost the plot, btp do not work for companies or business, they work for the public and should not be doing anything other than keeping the peace.
network rail may have a right of access which the owners have not disagreed with, however they do not own the land, hence whybthere should be an formal agreement and payment from network rail with regard to accessing private land, noise, pollution, inconvenience etc,
Corporate corruption as usual 🙄
Does who owns it matter?? There could be a right of access granted some time ago, written into the lease or deeds, without know all the details it is pointless to argue with anyone.
Would it matter to you if someone said they owned your house or in this instance driveway?
@@ALTNABREAC Absolutely it would matter, however I am not a lawyer or land agent, when I bought a home it was surveyed, and I knew there were no rights of use or old pathways/right of way, it appears you own part of the cattle crossing, it seems they claim they own it, but from your other videos it seems they paid former owners a fee, as someone said why pay a fee if they owned it, there may be a clause allowing access a number of times a year, or for maintenance, was the fee if paid for damage to the path, hopefully it will be sorted, different region different rules and laws, like many I am watching to see the outcome, hope you get it sorted, no one likes a bully.
Ok using you logic I will come and use your car because it doesn’t matter that you own it!
@@clivewiddall3430 Nothing has been made clear, I have watched time and again, is there a right of access or covenant, where I live we have a surveyor check the site, go over the deeds, we turned down a place as it still had access to the rear, this was used for the coal man, and was still in place, both parties cannot be right, endless videos do not solve the issue, going to court or producing evidence what is allowed or not, one thing raised which I don't know is true, payments were made to the previous owner, which could be compensation for damage during access or 'rent' for continued use, until a day in court comes it appears no one knows.
@@PeterChapman-rg6grBut NWR and BTP are not arguing about only access rights! They are falsely claiming to own the drive and that the couple do not own it. That way NWR can have full access to the land and build upon it, without the couples' permission. Such an illegal ploy can of course only work of you also have the BTP in your back pocket to illegally force it through, despite it actually being a civil dispute and not a criminal matter!
Either the property Title Deeds state the homeowner owns the disputed land or they do not. The FIRST THING anyone would do is to check these.
But that is not the problem, its not ownership (as the couple keep on saying) its about the right of access.
The rail company most likely has right of access for repairs. You may own the property but there has to be a mature understanding of allowing the people in to do their job.
Not sure what this latest video proves, apart from possible incompetency by whoever was responsible for the legal work and conveyancing when you purchased the property.
Erm, how about it proves the people's claim where their boundary is as opposed to NR just saying 'we own it'?
Sorry....how does it perhaps show incompetence by the conveyancing solicitor? Which aspects in particular show incompetence as opposed to it simply being that the land purchased by the couple includes the driveway and the solicitor was not incompetent?
@@1701_FyldeFlyer Nothing alters the fact that NR have right of access.
It proves Network Rail have acted dishonestly by falsely claiming to own our driveway. It proves that Network Rail committed criminal damage to our property and aggravated trespass by occupying our land and blocking our driveway for 3 days....Network Rail knew all along they did not own our driveway. How can you not understand what they were did?!
Our conveyancing solicitor told us we owned our own driveway!
Right of access and ownership of the land are two completely different things.
The police were talking about trespass, that cannot happen to either party where there is only right of access.
This needs to enter the court system. Bloody useless police force just completely ignoring any evidence you have.
I would venture that they aren't ignored but are out numbered by NR, for profit big business.
All police are useless.
@@riverdeep399NR is state owned
Not just a Police Force, but a British Railway Transport Police Force, who appear to be on the side of their Fat Controller
Presumably, they need access to necessary maintenance. ?
If they do then they either have to ask for permission and pay for it.
That’s not the actual issue the issue is the company is claiming they own the land when it’s the landowner that does
@@lotuselise4432 Nope, they have right of access, that means they can do it,. You have no say in it.
@@ThemoonsFullofgoons-qn9xl No the company is not claiming ownership of the land, just the right of access.
The dispute seems to be between ownership and access. Honestly I cannot see what all the noise is about. Scotrail need access to carry out repairs, maintenance etc. The station house owners seem to know what area of land they own but take on a selfish attitude when Scotrail use their right of access. The work they have carried out is clean and tidy and the new route will keep train passengers away from their portion of their beloved driveway and cattle grid
You know with trains since the very earliest of days...they had goods wagons and open deck wagons.
On these you could put machinery like concrete mixers etc. and deliver them to a railway station on railway land and use them to make a path on railway land ...
all WITHOUT setting foot on private land..
or cutting chains and forcing entry on private property..
@@JohnSmith-pl2bk Yes except property comes with easements which NR likely have over his land.
@@TheTacticalHaggis
Easements have a legal definition dependent on the land survey....strictly defined.
No survey = no "easement"...
All that work could have been carried out on the GOVERNMENT land OUTSIDE the private property.
Regardless of who owns what, you have to give access 24/7 to NR and/or their contractors.
The reason your boundary stops where it does is to stop arguments of right of way. As I said before these shared accesses are the cause of many disputes.
It also appears you do not own the platform, so expect a fence to be erected.
Question, what has happened since the path was constructed?
How many times have the contractors or NR been back since the construction of said path?
Why don't you do b&b, train stops outside your door? Or did...
Please show new footage since construction, thanks
So how did the previous owners of the land deal with this problem?
What you need to realize is, when you buy a property the land itself never actually belongs to you. What you buy is a “bundle of rights.” Sometimes these rights are very comprehensive and sometimes there are limitations. Access is frequently retained by past owners in the form of easements and rights of and are not always defined on the documents of conveyance.
It is a previous owners (vendors) responsibility to declare any and all burdens on/to the property to permit due diligence. It is also the conveyancer to determina all burdens and declare findings.
( note that network rail at time of transfer also took on burdens imposed at original acquisition of the land by act of parliament on behalf of the original railway company..... in many cases perpetual lease subject to continued use. Land returns to 'owner'
Looking forward to seeing the full survey video
You have a remote house with what was pretty much its own train station. Now you just have a remote house with no USP?
One day when we were BT turned up, drove through our garden, and installed a Telephone pole at the edge of our property. This was not for us but a new Council Housing for Youths.
We were given no advanced knowledge and BT destroyed our garden, a fence, and a curb.
We complained but received no compensation and were advised by our solicitor not to pursue it as it would probably cost us more than we would make.
What got us the most was that if they moved the post three feet from where they put it, it would have been on the new Council property and they could have accessed it from the Council property with no need whatsoever to access our land.
The point is that these large companies can pretty much do what they want and there is little we can do to prevent it or receive compensation. I would say that those that do are in the minority.
Tell them to remove it. They need an easement.
Chainsaw
A new road was going to be built near us with a roundabout to serve a new greenfield housing estate. The developers drew a map locating the road to maximise land available for new housing and the council put it out for consultation. It cut through the private property and houses on our side of the road. It never happened. but it really begs the question of who thought that first map was acceptable and how the land ownership failed to be taken into account.
Oh my goodness. Just get a full survey done and show us the map when complete. This bickering tells us nothing. Then take it to court for a final determination - less clicks that way I suppose.
If your claims are valid good on you if not take the loss with grace.
If the railway thought they were right they would have done this already, obviously they have plenty of money, so why haven't they got a full survey...because they already knew the answer huh !
@@boogboog8097 Indeed!
@@boogboog8097 Why should Network Rail try to prove anything, let the disputing party lodge the claim and both will then have costs to cover.
Sure, this couple can just magic up 200k to fight a government organisation
if you don't like the videos about watch happening you can always just not watch them instead of having to moan about them.
Another video whereby the recorder wants drama! Where's the video of them going to court?
Or maybe the whole story. Once people realise Karen & Ken simply didn’t like living next to a railway station and were desperate to get it closed.
Owning and having access may be two different things
NR is falsely claiming to OWN the cattle grid and our driveway. This video proves they are wrong!
I do wonder why you bought this place in the first instance. I have heard a lot of contradictions about not wanting to stop people using the station but ultimately stopping works that will allow it to stay open… then hearing from yourself that there is a public right of way, but I also saw you remove a lock off the pedestrian gate in one of your videos, I know you may have a camera or sign but it’s restricting access. You also said the previous owner had problems, why did you buy it then… all seems mental to me. Maybe network rail would buy it from you and you can be happy with somewhere else.
Would you just give up and give away your property?
@@ALTNABREAC No... I wouldn't have bought it knowing what you knew in the first place. "Selling" is not giving it away. The stress its clearly causing you is surely not worth it. That's unless you have some other motive and want monetary compensation for all this, I notice you have a go fund me page as well. I don't think these videos are painting you both in a good light. That's just my opinion, you are putting these videos up on TH-cam and should expect a few honest responses.
I wish you both happiness in the future, that's all.
@@ALTNABREAC I've got to say - you two do yourselves no favours. I've been reading these comments - you both get pretty salty with anyone who doesn't 'support' you - and you contradict yourselves on many occasions. Why do you feel it's necessary to promote this issue on TH-cam - surely your efforts should be focused on legal channels - you do, I assume, have irrefutable evidence regarding ownership as you claim - so you can't lose - if what you tell us is all correct?
Soo... Does this all simply come down to documentation, then....!?
.... Whoever can PROVE they own the land....owns the land.....!?!?
.... AND, If Network Rail can PROVE they have right of access... then they have right of access.....!?!?
if you watch the full video that the clips involving the officer comes from, the land owner offers to show the police the documentation that does prove that he actually owns the land and the officer says he doesn't want to see it. it is clear that the officer doesn't care who is right and wrong, he went there to threaten the land owner with arrest if they didn't let network rail through and doesn't care who actually legally owns it.
the coiple do own the land. and network rail do not own it or have access to it.. they have land leading utpo this couples own drive and when looking in the video also own towards the tracks (left of the cattle grid where the locks were on chain), but they are not willing to smash down their own trees and use that, they want to go on this couples land fuck up their trees and damage their land..
@@jamesbillington3501The police aren’t able to inspect any legal documents, they are police not lawyers. They are there to enforce the law, prevent law breaking and de-escalate if violence is threatened. It has been determined that NR have right of access and the police are doing their job, making sure that NR can access without being illegally blocked. If a court decides NR do not have right of access then the police will turn up to stop NR taking one step onto their land. But the police aren’t going to judge that themselves, they are separated from the court system for a reason. So the paperwork is completely irrelevant to them, they don’t have the training or the skills to understand the legalese, check for forgeries etc. it’s the same reason why if they attend a baillif seizing property from a house or business, they will stand there and do nothing except prevent fights and blocked access. They don’t care you have a piece of paper saying you’re in the right, as far as they are concerned, you could have run that out of your printer and your imagination. If a judge has actually blocked the seizure of goods, you go to the court and you bring the hammer down (or, far more likely have it carefully explained to you how you didn’t understand the piece of paper)
What on earth are police doing getting involved in a civil matter
When people obstruct access to a public railway station resulting in it having to be closed then it does become a police matter.
Transport police employed by the railway company.
I have to say I am not surprised.
Not that I expect NR to accept the results of a professional survey. Ultimately it sounds as the home owners were completely correct on the ownership issue which leaves NR with a right of access argument only. The right of access is exactly what it implies a right to access the property for a defined purpose. Within the title deeds or registration there should be a description of what is allowed access (pedestrians only, pedestrians and vehicles, there might even be a weight restriction on the vehicles) and for what purpose - I would assume it is to allow access to the station/platforms which in principle would allow access for general maintenance.
When the station house property was originally sold that would have been when a right of access should have been created. If NR lawyers failed to do that at the time, there is no right of access. If NR had previously been accessing the site following payment of a fee to the old home owner then they almost certainly do not have a right of access merely a licence to access which has probably lapsed if they have not paid fees to the new owners
Thanks for your great comment.
Why on earth would you buy the land when you were already aware of the dispute. Crazy.
This video is so chopped up I wouldn't be surprised if it's been edited for sympathy and important information has been omitted.
Why wasn’t this path access not placed the far side of the cattle grid
@@paulguymer8837 I presume to avoid the need for a second cattle grid?
This not a Police matter. This is a civil matter
No its a crime, denial of access.
If you live in a railway station, don't be surprised if the railway company owns the access to it.
You woulda thought that...but......
Surveyors, thats the best way to get the facts established.
Forgive me if I've misunderstood as it's not very clear. So the boundary runs to somewhere near the middle of the cattle grid and that's where it goes off at an angle to the other side of the driveway? does that mean that your fence along the southern boundary is in the wrong position and you actually own some of your neighbours garden?
from what I saw it starts to runs a little bit past the access gate around the 2/3 point of the cattle grid where their land starts however even though they don't own the road leading up to the cattle grid or the first two thirds of the cattle grid they have the right to access it to get on or off their property. Originally the house would have been part of the station at least that would be my guess back before mobile ticket purchases were a thing.
Is this dispute all about wayleave rights? I am not a legal expert, but have purchased and sold many property in Scotland over the years.
As far as I am aware wayleaves remain with the land or property in perpetuity. Wayleaves are normally picked up by the buyers solicitor at time of purchase. Any information gathered then kept with the land title. Common examples are drains, electric and telephone cables, rights of access to a plot of land for development. But bigger projects such as mobile phone masts and wind turbines and it now appears access to railway stations can also come under these rules.
So if the previous owner of the property agreed to a permanent right of access over the land for a single payment then those wayleave rights transfer to the new land owner. Wayleave rights over land always remain in place, which is obviously reasonable as they have paid or are paying money for the privilage of wayleave rights..
Sometimes the new owner can benefit from annual payments from wayleave rights, but obviously that is only the case if that was the method instigated at the time of the wayleave agreement.
Access has to be allowd for the recipient of the wayleave. But equally the land over which they have access must not be damaged and must be maintained as per the agreement.
Like I say I am not a legal expert. I have dealt with wayleave holders over my land before and never had any problems. I once dug through a mains electricity cable on my land, they fixed it at their cost, because they had not made me aware of the cable.
In this case, all that needs to be done is for everyone to sit down with the paperwork. And agree what was covered in the wayleave agreement with the previous owner. That agreement is a legal document and can't be ignored or broken. It should reside with the title deeds
Lets get the station open again. Thanks.
Well done Ian and Liz, you have proved the boundary. Ignore the catty remarks that have been floating around..
Thanks very much. Take care
The railway needs to be maintained. If there was a derailment, would you prevent the emergency services from accessing the line?
There is separate legislation that covers this situation that would allow the right to access private land in an emergency! Was building a pathway an emergency! So your comment is irrelevant. The tracks are checked every Sunday by Network Rail - please see video showing the rail car they use.
Go catch criminals for gods sake ,,pathetic policing
If we go back a bit and ask the question "Why did they pay the previous tenant if they already owned the land ? " I'm only 3 minutes in to the video so might have missed something.
This is a VERY good point
Not sure how they’d argue this point in court as the payments to the previous owner would surely evidence them not owning the land 🤔
the time for arguing is over, and this needs to go to court now for EVERYONES benefit... let the court hear the surveyors information, and allow them to make a judgement. as well as setting a proper access agreement for NR.... Clearly NR need access to their assets on the station, and from the look of some of the previous videos that access was a mutually satisfying agreement between all parties. but likewais the land is yours, and you own it, so you also have rights.... the courts are the ultimate arbiter, and ultimately the final solution! While clearly the land is your own, as it stands NEITHER side comes out of this looking good we dont know what historic agreements NR have in place for one. I understand court costs money, money you stand to loose.... but its the only way! and for the record, im on NEITHER sie at the moment. the property owners own the land fair enough, that much is clear, but like I say... NR has a right of access to the station, and statutory powers so its 50/50 IMO! that said, BTP shouldnt be getting involved unless a crime has been comitted, and getting a court order would add weight to any claim against them!
Thanks for taking the time to comment
Police should have never been involved it's a civil matter
I agree, from what i can figure out the station was closed and now it is being reopened. The station house and the land was sold which means that right of access should no longer apply. If the railway wants to reopen the station they should renegociate access.
@@chrisedmundson6673 the right of access to maintain the track is laid down in law.
Not real police.
Police Scotland would not respond to their requests for assistance as they don't have resources to deploy. Snp administration have stripped police Scotland of funding.
@@niallmackie51 British Transport Police have all the powers of any other police officer. They are separate from, say, Police Scotland and are able to operate across the whole of the UK.
this we all should agree on. There's no point to the police being there.
Get this matter before the courts, the sooner the better.
Interesting! Who was the surveyor representing, and what data was he using to determine the exact boundary position? Does this now define ownership and the right of access to the track between the cattle grid, past your house and to the platform? What is the line of the Eastern boundary - at the treeline, in front or it, or in the woodland beyond?
We asked the surveyor to come and clarify what we already knew about our property ownership. He was using GPS technology which was the most accurate that can be used for surveying, which is to just a few millimeters. Yes I can confirm that it is now clearly defined, the ownership and right of access from the cattle grid to the platform (Our Driveway)
@@ALTNABREAC maybe you should paint your part of the cattle grid! :)
@@martyndeyoung8207 Yes I was thinking about that 👍
I told you weeks ago it was in the middle of the road just based off the ScotLIS information but I'm sure you knew that anyway, so you were blocking their access to their land down the one side of the cattle grid and they had every right to cut the lock off their property. I'm sure they'll thank you later for videoing it all for them so they can build the case against you.
Did you miss the part where the surveyor pegs the eastern side of the cattle grid......! NR do not own the cattle grid OR our driveway. We own around a third of the cattle grid and the forestry company owns the rest! NR acted unlawfully by causing criminal damage to our lock and chain and committing aggravated trespass and the BTP aided and abetted those criminal acts. They will be held to account because THEY ARE NOT above the law.
I think you might need glasses or didn't watch the survey being done, he added the spike boundary post to the side of the cattle grid, so they were right about owning it.
@@dianawoodall9897Am I the only one that listens to things? The surveyor said he would attach a marker and make a measurement off the nail (screw in this case). That would indicicate that the boundary corner will be a certain distance from the nail (screw in this case) putting a corner a certain distance from the nail into the cattle grid as would indicate on the plans. These videos have been heavily edited to try and provide a narrative that they want to tell instead of putting the whole survey online like a normal person with nothing to hide would do.
@@samphire Quite.
The surveyor needs to hold the survey staff perpendicular. The top of the staff is the point being located not the pointed end. So if it is slanted the point is Not on the boundary. Also as only half of the drive is ‘owned’ by someone then they can only access along that half so why in hell where they walking all over your land when you asked them not to.
I use this equipment daily. The GPS receivers have tilt sensors that allow the data collector to compensate for the rod being out of plumb. You sacrifice maybe a cm or two of accuracy doing this.
Step 1 - survey establishes correct boundary eg down the middle of the driveway. Step 2 - you erect a fence on that boundary- even just a simple wire fence. Step 3 - clarify if right of way exists for the rail authorities to gain access. If no access rights exist then…… Step 4 - lay charges of criminal damage against anyone who destroys the fence . Step 5 - if right of way exists for the rail authorities just suck it up.
Great result... I hope both establishments are held accountable and you get the compensation you deserve.
Some better results to come 👍
Not a chance.
@@ALTNABREACI look forward to you guys being able to peacefully enjoy what is yours. I'm so glad Mr smug chain cutter was wrong
@@barneyhughes Thanks, us too 🙂
@@alexanderferguson2199 It looks as though this is all about money!!1
All agencies are crupt when they think the person is able to be pushed around.
How about both parties agreeing to an independent surveyor to measure the site, in the presence of both parties own surveyors.
Each party gets a surveyor to do a survey.
Now if there are discrepancies ask both parties to justify their interpretation...why are there discrepancies?
The truth is in there somewhere....
Take them to court and Sue the arse off of them wishing you well
Ian,Liz I love your tenacity pushing forward in times of troubles..
Thank you
my g grandma lost her house same way an my grandad 2 they just take what they want or find ways to cost you $ so you leave
Yes that's exactly right.
Somebody effed up the title deeds at the Network Rail and your solicitor did not check the deeds properly. This mess probably began when NR sold off the land in the first place many years ago. The hysteria from the landowners does not help them. Any "grey area" is going to be decided against you now. If you piss off the court when it finally gets there in the same way, any benefit of the doubt will go against you again.
When is going to court, it's the only way to settle this.
Its settled, police were there, workers getting on with the job.
Boundaries and rights of access are totally different things. A right of access does not mean ownership - however it is likely that they have right of access in perpetuity and there is little that can be done to prevent it just like having a rambling path running across your land . If the damage your drive or anything else they have to make good
No. NR are not claiming to have a 'right of access in perpetuity' (which they don't have anyway), they are falsely claiming to own the cattle grid and our driveway and they do not as proved by this video.
If NR have the rights they claim, they can present it in a civil court, the legal method not spurious bullying, and obtain an injunction. That would end all dispute & they could probably get costs. No need to send police officer/s, whose job is to uphold the law, not adjudicate in civil disputes. So why haven't they?🤔 They've already spent thousands on sending various un-knowledgeable officers, managers and workmen with cutting equipment etc.into an area of civil dispute. If their claim is so straightforward, it will be over in no time with no need to keep dispatching people who should have better things to do.
Hi John, you make very good points. They are relying on bullying and abusing the BTP powers because they don't have a right or legal leg to stand on.
@@derekfaeberwick Clearly, they haven't. Once an injunction is served, the police attending would carry a copy, given they work for NR, and present it. What the police would NOT do, is refer to 'what we were told by...' Proper, signed documents. That's what is known as due process. Given there's been no official warnings or charges laid, it's not what you claim. Are you an 'interested party' or somebody with a grudge?. My interest is only observational. Unfortunately, big corporations have a habit of attempting to bully people they have no case against. I was similarly threatened, many years ago, regarding a non-existent contract. That didn't stop the threats by a barrister, who continued to threaten even after I requested a signed copy of said contract. I knew there wasn't one. The threats continued right to the point I could clearly claim harrassment and threatened to sue for damages - never heard from them again. 'Show me the legal documents' is the only response - assertions are worth zero.
@@ALTNABREAC I obviously don't know the legal situation for certain, however, it's clearly encumbent on them to provide documented evidence, to resolve the issue, if they believe they have it. It's almost impossible for private citizens to take out a case against a corporation, based entirely on hearsay. But it's clearly a misuse of the police to pursue a civil case, on behalf of a corporation, against a private citizen. It's irregular and suspicious. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, however, my understanding is, if there are official, registered, current documents, they should provide all 'interested' parties, i.e. you and the police, with copies. You cannot challenge something nobody appears to have registered copies of. I'm not sure who you would complain about misuse of police time to but they may be liable, in a compensation claim, if they fail to rectify the situation promptly and in a legitimate manner. This is also the fastest way to resolve issues and deal with what needs to be done - including the reopening of the station in the event it's then plausible.
Just waiting on Altnabreac station reopening...that will really piss you off won't it!
Why comment if you have nothing nice to say.
We were the main users of the station! It will only re-open IF Network Rail do things the right and lawful way. Stop trolling because you've been proved wrong AGAIN.
Arrogant, ignorant or both? We want the station open, get some cotton ear buds.
What are you arguing about ?
Why don't you let them do the maintenance work they need to do to the railway.
You are living in the old station, the trains go past the platform and your windows.
The railway will always have maintained right of access, whether you like it or not !!
This sort of confrontation gets him views, and money in the bank. The guy is a 24 carat, a$$hole.
Exactly
@@richard21995 I think someone screwed up when they sold the station to private owners. They should have kept that bit of land or had an arrangement to allow access. But they didn't. Hence the problem. If it was me I would have offered to allow access for a price and had it in legal documentation.
@@barrymayson2492 They can have access. Look up the Wayleaves law. We allow the electric company onto our land to service their cables that run across our land. No issue with it. Some people love to be stubborn.
@@JohnDoe-vj5bb I don't think they wanted to deny NR access to create the path. I understand the issue arose because NR randomly decided to get the British Transport Police to arrest them for criminal trespass, just by virtue of them accessing their house via the self same driveway.
It is a case of a bullying organisation not employing reasonableness in the first instance. All they had to do was ask nicely and offer any remediation and none of this would have been an issue.
1:49 The police are for criminal purposes only and should not be getting involved in a civil matter of land registry. This is a pure intimidation tactic, you should just tell the British Transport Police Constable who’s wages are paid by #networkrail to abide by his oath as a Constable and leave your property as he is trespassing and he can go back to his bosses who are also paid by network rail and tell them that if network rail want access they will have to go through the courts system like everyone else
😂 British Transport Police are police and funded by the taxpayer and not Network Rail.
He's there because higher ups have looked at old plans, checked the land registry which should hold up to date land maps.
Of course it's unfair that this has happened, but if you're buying property within a rural area that has access to the countryside, always, always do your own research
@@Msdinomite you are incorrect !!
BTP are funded mainly by the rail network !!!
Maybe you should do some research !!!
@@Msdinomite every land purchase I have ever heard of includes a land survey and steel marker posts. This land owners lawyer should have made sure this was done to protect the landowner from later claims like this.
I'm watching this with interest. To see how it all ends. Hope you win.
Thank you! Your support and encouragement is appreciated a lot! Liz and Ian.
Storm in a tea cup. A good solicitor would have this problem sorted out in a few weeks.
I was under the impression that satellite co-ordinates are only accurate to within 12 ft.
What this Royal Civil Engineer was using, was accurate to 1.1cm
What satellite co-ordinates are you talking about?
These are very accurate buildings are set out with them I think within 12 mm
The tool he is using is different to your smartphone.🙂
@@jonathonwheatcroft754 I believe they measure from a fixed point, such as a house corner, and measure to that.
If you still have full access...let them do the upkeep and maintenance. Whats the problem?
Did they just need access to do work on their utility property? Why are you being a jerk? There is not much back story. Did they destroy any of your property? Other than vegetation and ground. If they did, did they repair it? Did they go away after they did their repair? Did they damage the cattle gate?
Why did you ever buy the property in such a wonderful location if you didnt want the existing railway to operate as it has done for a hundred years or so Most people would be very envious to live in such beautiful isolation and get on with their neighbours-its called being a community If you didnt want that why did you ever move from your southern urban environments? Go fund me-what a joke-i wouldnt give you a penny when all you want to do is disrupt the rural idyll in the area you have chosen to move to. I once owned a property adjacent to the West Coast Main Line and then found railtrack had access to my garden as a culvert ran under it. When the time came that it needed repair Railtrack could not have been more helpful-Firstly by carefully removing my fence and once the job was done used a cultivator to replace my vegetable garden,replace my fence and then put up a protective metal fence outside my existing fence (on their land and at their expense) to add security to both my property and the adjacent railway line .Sorry but you guys seriously need to get a life!
I'm confused by a lot of your videos but this one takes the biscuit - so, Uh! Oh! I CAN'T guess who 'owns' the cattle grid entrance !! What I get from it is the surveyor stating you own 'about' a 1/3rd of it? If that's the case who owns the rest? And if they were to get bolshy too could they stop you accessing their part and hence prevent you using yours?? As I say that video just adds more confusion to the matter.....
The surveyor said the the extent of our southern boundary covers around a third of the cattle grid. The forestry owns the rest! NR do not own it!
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h Fine. So what happens if the forestry decide to block their two thirds of the cattle grid and stop your access? Do you then argue that you have a right of access which I believe NR claim for your part of the grid/driveway?? I really don't envy you with this problem...
@@keefr22 The forestry cannot prevent our access to our own driveway as we have an heritable and irredeemable servitude right of access over their land to access our home.
NR did not argue they had a 'right of access' over our driveway, they falsely claim to OWN our driveway. They've been proved wrong.
They're getting so caught up in ownership that they have no clue about easements.
@@TheTacticalHaggis There are no easements that's why. And Network Rail is not claiming to have an 'easement' over our land, they're falsely claiming to own our driveway.
Get legal advice and take them all to court. Do what is legal than fight it yourselves.
Thank James, happy sailing. I love the look of sailing, I've got a real appreciation and fascination of yachts lately, I watch quite a few videos on youtube, like Sailing Ocean Melody. Hope I can go on a sailing yacht one day.
Has this still not been resolved by solicitors?
We have got one now.
Good hopefully it will be resolved
Lol.solicitors act to maximize both law firms profits, they never act for their clients
@@minixtvbox Why do you make such a statement - 'solicitors don't act for their clients' - so tens of thousands of people happily pay their lawyers for nothing? OK.
In Quebec we would call that Prescriptive Acquisition. Theyy peacefully occupied the land openly for over a decade, its theirs now.
You've caused the station to be shut since November 2023. Just let Network Rail do their job so the station can be reopened.
NR has caused the station to be closed and it remains closed because NR are acting unlawfully and unreasonably. This is the sole reason matters have been delayed for so long. I suggest you complain direct to NR.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h what laws have they broken? They are very likely to have given you good notice of any works so that is that box ticked. They will make good any damage they cause to the access road. Sounds like they are the reasonable ones acting within the law of the land - perhaps not the law of the cottage but hey ho, I know which wins.
Storm in a tea cup let them get on with the job required. The grass would have grown back by now😂😂😂