Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby twits » Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:40 pm

Treeman wrote:Nope, there you go again “misunderstanding” things. I didn’t say people I said YOU


Ouch that hurts, I am the only person in the world that you think deserves to have objects thrown at them? All for the crime of allowing them to fall onto someones property. Perhaps the death penalty would have been a more fitting punishment eh. Any update on the law I am misunderstanding Treeman? You only seem to have nit picked the word 'people' and 'you'. Thank you for taking the time to pull me up on that, after all we wouldn't want the world thinking you condone violence. Just against certain people (damn there I go again.. ME ), that makes it quite alright.

Mattylad wrote:I'd be really scared at hedge branches - well I mean - they can kill they are that big

With possibility of falling off the ladder trying to avoid flying objects with a chainsaw in hand, quite frankly yes. I'm sure treeman would agree that would have been a great ending for me (not people, just me) and paid for ringside seats for that too. But that's only an assumption of mine, I sense the vibes towards me from treeman to be overtly hostile.

Mattylad wrote:Twits, I think you just need to get over it and get on with your life - your hedges are cut.

Hmm, get over it and get on with my life. Thank you for your advice, I didn't realise that you cared so much about my life.

Mattylad do you have any worth while contribution on the question of, was the policeman correct in saying it was perfectly fine to throw objects over the fence at people I can't see much constructive opinion from you yet, albeit going to shop at Poundland was priceless. If not take heed of your own advice, get over this forum question and get on with your life. Really good advice I wish an idiot like myself had actually thought that line up, so clever.
Member of the Trollman fan club since 2011 - I'm right you're wrong, this is the law.
User avatar
twits
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:22 am

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby Treeman » Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:12 pm

twits wrote:Ouch that hurts, I am the only person in the world that you think deserves to have objects thrown at them? All for the crime of allowing them to fall onto someones property. Perhaps the death penalty would have been a more fitting punishment eh. Any update on the law I am misunderstanding Treeman? You only seem to have nit picked the word 'people' and 'you'. Thank you for taking the time to pull me up on that, after all we wouldn't want the world thinking you condone violence. Just against certain people (damn there I go again.. ME ), that makes it quite alright.



No not everybody but some and I count you among them.

I have some little experience in overhanging trees and have seen this scenario from both sides on more occasions than I care to recall.

You are rightly or wrongly miffed at your neighbour for whatever offence they have offered and have stooped to their level to extract a bit of get even,………… and now it has backfired. I imagine your neighbour and his wife down the pub/shops/or wherever retelling the hilarious story of you playing dodge the branch and screaming “I don’t want them back, I read it on the internet”. The story will only get better as it is re told and embellished. I am off down the pub now, I think I will have a go at telling the story, it is sure to raise a laugh among the drunks.

Still at least this forum is giving you a little relief as well as showing what in your nature precipitated branchgate
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby mr sheen » Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:37 pm

In relation to the throwing of the branches and that it seems to be ok as long as they miss...
In order to bring a criminal case, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal offence was committed and this is where the problem lies - the Twits were not injured therefore proving that an assault took place is impossible, proving any intent to cause any harm would also be difficult since the neighbours were just returning branches that had been allowed to fall on their property without prior notice and so the Police quite rightly decided very quickly without wasting public money that it would be pointless pursuing this further in relation to any criminal offence.

If the Twits want to take their chances and pursue a civil claim for the cost of the damaged light, that would be at their own expense and not public expense; alternatively the twits could take the very sound advice of Matty and 'get on with their lives' with their cut hedges and make some effort to rebuild the relations with their neighbours.
mr sheen
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby twits » Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:42 pm

Treeman, you claim that I have misunderstood the law. You have still not cited the bit of law I have misunderstood. Fine go ahead an rabbit on about how you like to hang out with drunks and revel in enjoyment you gain from people being assaulted, that's the type of person you are and I don't hold it against you.

However you claim to have a piece of knowledge about the law that I misunderstood. This information could help others who may have the desire to throw property that belongs to a neighbour at them and whether they are going to be charged with serious criminal convictions. Why are you holding back the information for Treeman? We could have a whole nation with neighbours throwing trees, roof slates, baseball bats at each other. Just think of all the enjoyment you could have in the pub with the drunks. With the reluctance to share the information, one can only assume you don't actually know what you're talking about.

@ mr sheen, I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Without proof you have no case at all. Whether it be throwing things, dumping, cutting down your neighbours hedges completely, trespass nobody will ever go ahead with legal proceedings against you without evidence that it was 'you' who committed any offence. CCTV is the only way to go to protect yourself and your property. Any covert CCTV footage is usually dismissed in court cases as far as I am aware, not too sure on that one.

As far as I can see, you do not have to make contact to commit assault. You only have to be placed in apprehension of contact. If contact is made, battery is then committed. Battery and assault can be committed at the same time. The contact can be anything, a fist, a branch, spit, shaving foam as rupert murdoch has recently experienced basically anything that is about to make contact with you and you are apprehensive about the contact. Physical injuries do not have to be present, but if they are the amount of compensation made increases according to the degree of injury. I am still waiting for Treeman to correct me on this one and cite the bit of law that I have misunderstood.

Very nice post there Mr Sheen, I never looked at it from the lack of evidence side of things. As Mr Sheen says, in order to bring a criminal case you need solid evidence. However, if that was the reason it was dismissed the Police should have told me it was due to lack of evidence and not said that it is perfectly find for the neighbour to throw things at me (if that' is indeed a correct statement). According to our Police force, we can go throwing things at our neighbours without fear of any prosecution irrespective of evidence or not.
Member of the Trollman fan club since 2011 - I'm right you're wrong, this is the law.
User avatar
twits
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:22 am

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby Treeman » Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:58 pm

You are a twit aren’t you, do you think you were assaulted?

Clearly you weren’t or the police would have taken it seriously they take assault seriously even if it is a tit for tat neighbour tiff.

I doubt there will be much chucking stuff at people over boundaries. In my experience you are the only person that that has managed to elicit such a response. You have already accepted that you misunderstood the law, have a read through and figure it out.

The drunks loved the story, one of them said if you had behaved like that with him, he would have made you wear the branch like and enema. I think that was just the drink talking. I am pretty certain that would constitute an assault though. Perhaps you got off lightly.
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby twits » Sun Aug 07, 2011 2:44 pm

Treeman wrote:You are a twit aren’t you, do you think you were assaulted?

I have given my understanding of assault in a previous post. I do indeed believe it was assault, the first branch was thrown while my back was turned and caused no apprehension therefore no assault committed. Second branch I saw coming towards me with the potential of contact, causing apprehension therefore assault is committed and the assaults continued. From what I am reading, you call me a twit and disagree that an assault was committed. Please could you expand your reasoning beyond name calling as to why you think no assault has been committed.

Treeman wrote:Clearly you weren’t or the police would have taken it seriously

How is it clearly? Did they come and investigate, did they question the nieghbours to find out both sides of the story. Did they ask for evidence? They didn't say it was lack of evidence for the assault. They just claimed it was fine to do so. Mr Sheen gives a reasonable theory as to why they didn't investigate due to lack of evidence. I say they can't be arsed with paperwork and coming out at all as no serious injuries were present.

Treeman wrote:You have already accepted that you misunderstood the law

At no point have I accepted I have misunderstood the law, I am still awaiting your knowledge of the law which you are repeatedly avoiding to share with us. I have misunderstood the etiquette of accepting your own property back. Please show me the bit of 'law' that says you are not allowed to refuse property that belongs to you when thrown back at you and the law on assault that I am misunderstanding. Is it really that hard to rise above name calling and sharing your thoughts on how people (oops, myself) deserve to be subjected to violent behaviour from others and actually cite the law you know so much about.
Member of the Trollman fan club since 2011 - I'm right you're wrong, this is the law.
User avatar
twits
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:22 am

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby Treeman » Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:17 pm

I thought you were flogging this because you had a hair to split.

You can call it etiquette but dumping your shite on others land is called fly tipping and that’s law.

Aren’t you getting bored displaying your “cleverness” here? I am sure your neighbour has been glad of the short respite while your attentions have been diverted if only for a while, I can see now why the unfortunate man’s patience was exhausted.

I continue to entertain your nonsense for his sake.
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby twits » Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:33 pm

Treeman wrote:You can call it etiquette but dumping your shite on others land is called fly tipping and that’s law.


Not necessarily, it could also be deemed mislaid or abandoned property as the owner of the property is known. The owner of the item may have returned to collect it at a convenient time.

Still no law citation to prove me wrong? I am disappointed.
Member of the Trollman fan club since 2011 - I'm right you're wrong, this is the law.
User avatar
twits
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:22 am

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby Treeman » Sun Aug 07, 2011 7:26 pm

twits wrote:
Treeman wrote:You can call it etiquette but dumping your shite on others land is called fly tipping and that’s law.


Not necessarily, it could also be deemed mislaid or abandoned property as the owner of the property is known. The owner of the item may have returned to collect it at a convenient time.

Still no law citation to prove me wrong? I am disappointed.



No you are wrong, you can play your interpretation game all you like but its definitely called fly tipping.


You can look up the law for yourself, it will keep you from bothering people for a while.
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby twits » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:20 pm

** WARNING - Wall of text **
When people appropriate branches, whether by intention or by another's mistake. The legislation within the Theft Act 1968 is cited.

The basic definition of theft: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;(Theft Act 1968: section 1.1)

For theft you need to determine if it has been acquired dishonestly and if there is the intention of permanently depriving the true owner of it.
A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions unless the following applies:

When he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed;
(Theft Act 1968: section 4.2b)


The land in question will be where the the tree still stands and severed tree formation will be on neighbouring property, which means if it has been severed either by the owner of the land or the owner of the neighbouring property severed tree formation is 'property' that can be stolen and moved.

As you know the item can be stolen you will then have to ascertain whether the object has been dishonestly appropriated. A persons appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest if the following applies:

If he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person (Theft Act 1968: section 2.1a)

Under common law you are allowed to sever overhanging branches to your boundary line. Therefore you have not dishonestly appropriated the severed tree formation, you have used a law to 'honestly' move it. For theft to be committed, it needs to be appropriated dishonestly. If you cut beyond your own boundary, the common law will not cover you and your actions could be deemed dishonest if the owner would have objected if they knew of the appropriation or the person whom the property belonged to cannot be discovered.

The act of severing a formation of the land will render you unable to return them to its original state (ie attach it back onto the formation) and the eventual death of the formation will cause permanent loss. So your intention will be to permanently deprive them of the living formation.

Next you need to work out ownership of severed formation.There are two scenarios:

Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a
particular way (Theft Act 1968: section 5.3)

Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (Theft Act 1968: seciton 5.3)

In the sections 5.2 & 5.3 the method of appropriation is described followed by 'and is under an obligation' Due to the use of the conditional statement 'and' both appropriation and obligation will need to be correct and present.

If the other person has declared that there is no obligation to retain and deal with that property in a particular way, you cannot satisfy the whole of section 5.2 or 5.3 of the Theft Act 1968. However, section 5.1 of the act will become satisfied as follows:

Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest). (Theft Act 1968: section 5.1)

This is where I thought you have the right as the owner of the property to remove any obligations that were in place, by informing the person who is in possession of the severed formation that they are no longer obliged. Once obligations are removed, possession by acquired consent will occur and ownership will become questionable. To find the 'belonging to another', full satisfaction of a statement declared in section 5.1 to 5.5 of the Theft Act 1968 will identify the owner.

If the other declares that there is obligation to make restoration and they wish to terminate possession. An intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds. But to commit theft dishonest intention to take property on the part of the offender must occur as well.

Now this is where the law falls down, because the new owner could throw it back over (by mistake of course). The original owner appropriates the severed formation by mistake and you go through the whole cycle again. Maybe it could be a new version of volley ball for the Olympics.

The legal implications of throwing it over are littering (fly tipping if large amounts of waste), trespass to chattels, criminal damage to property, assault/battery if the formations strike or place a person in fear of contact with the formation. All of which you will probably need solid evidence for, the chances of the perpetrator owning up to it will be very slim.

I thought I would provide this link for my wonderful intellectual friend trollman (aka Treeman), I have found a link from the Keep Britain Tidy group for you with the definition of fly tipping. Page 3 - What is the difference between litter and fly-tipping, may be of interest. The guideline is a single sack of rubbish, which indicates it needs to be a fair decent amount of rubbish before it is fly-tipping. I doubt a single branch in a sack would meet the requirements. Don't worry about backing up what you say, I know you won't quantify any of your statements.

http://kb.keepbritaintidy.org/flytipping/Content/Publications/flylaw.pdf

It is also worth noting that if you are a victim of fly tipping on private land, the local authorities tend to do nothing to help clear it up. As it is on private land, it will be your responsiblity. This is from experience with my local authority.

I am struggling to find any information for litter on private land in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment act 2005, so as yet can't make any comments on litter/tipping.

My interpretation of the legislation it totally open to be ripped apart, these are just my thoughts.
Member of the Trollman fan club since 2011 - I'm right you're wrong, this is the law.
User avatar
twits
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:22 am

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby span » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:23 am

twits, you're a bore. Clear off.
span
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:34 am

Re: Arisings - Branches Falling over onto neighbours garden

Postby Mattylad » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:59 am

The OP's original question has been answered, however the topic has just deteriorated into insults so I think it's time has come to an end.
Any comments I give here are my own opinions, for legal advise check with a qualified solicitor.
User avatar
Mattylad
 
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:29 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
Previous

Return to Hedges

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests