Fencing covenant

arborlad
Posts: 8308
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by arborlad » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:39 am

SmallWelshBarn wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:55 pm
Franky I am more than happy to take this to court and let a judge decide on the definition of stock proof any one know any case law on this ?
What are the forum members views ?


My own view is that no right thinking individual would embark on the court process, with all its inherent costs and uncertainties so willingly.

You are required to fence against your own stock, that is well established law. If you had an ordinary farming neighbour that wished to farm wild boar, they would be obligated to upgrade the fence to a suitable standard, which would almost certainly include at least two electrified strands plus barbed wire, something that you would likely work together on because it is mutually beneficial. That particular neighbour is the Woodland Trust, which you seem to have alienated, but it might not be too late to work together.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

SmallWelshBarn
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:34 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 8
Number of topics per page: 8

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by SmallWelshBarn » Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:13 am

I have litigated 3 times over my life time twice to the LVT and one interim injunction. I have won each case except the interim injunction and that was my own fault and I should have not been seeking an injunction rather a hearing for a matter over trespass I’m not afraid to use the court system as that’s what it is their for.
I disagree with the Woodland trusts interpretation of stock proof. I think you miss the point the fencing belongs to the trust it is their obligation to insure it is stock proof.
I have spoken to 3 sets fencing contractors who all state stock fence should have barb along the bottom.
It stops stock getting under the fence.
All forestry Comission fencing has a strand of barb.
If my stock can get out it’s not stock proof and the covenant is for them to maintain it and insure it is stock proof.
It will be up to a judge to interpret what is stock proof.
As for the Woodland trust personal not a fan which is another story.

Morgan Sweet
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:47 pm

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by Morgan Sweet » Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:54 am

You are quite right in saying that the court system is there to remedy situations where someone has not complied with the Civil law. Unfortunately what puts Mr Average off is that it is so expensive to take someone to court leaving a situation where only the rich or large corporations can benefit from using our legal system.

I agree that the fence owned by the Woodland Trust (since the damage) is no longer stock proof and it should be their responsibility to repair and maintain it.

If it does come to litigation I wish you all the best and hope that you share your experience with us on this forum.

ukmicky
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by ukmicky » Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:01 am

SmallWelshBarn wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:13 am
I have litigated 3 times over my life time twice to the LVT and one interim injunction. I have won each case except the interim injunction and that was my own fault and I should have not been seeking an injunction rather a hearing for a matter over trespass I’m not afraid to use the court system as that’s what it is their for.
I disagree with the Woodland trusts interpretation of stock proof. I think you miss the point the fencing belongs to the trust it is their obligation to insure it is stock proof.
I have spoken to 3 sets fencing contractors who all state stock fence should have barb along the bottom.
It stops stock getting under the fence.
All forestry Comission fencing has a strand of barb.
If my stock can get out it’s not stock proof and the covenant is for them to maintain it and insure it is stock proof.
It will be up to a judge to interpret what is stock proof.
As for the Woodland trust personal not a fan which is another story.

The covenant is to prevent your animals from getting out and not to prevent wild animals getting in . You say your animals can get out. Have they.

Are there deer around by you . If there is barbed wire should not be used.

The only surefire way to keep a wild bore hunting for females out is to electrify it and that is something you couldn't require them to do unless it was being done at the time of grant .

Your easement does not mention to what standard the fencing should be . The scope of an easement if not expressly mentioned in the grant is normally determined by what was envisaged at the time of grant . If at the time of grant your land only contained sheep then they would have a very good argument that the fencing only needs to be of a standard to contain sheep .



Do not think this is a straight forward win
Any information provided is not legal advice and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

arborlad
Posts: 8308
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by arborlad » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:16 am

Morgan Sweet wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:54 am
You are quite right in saying that the court system is there to remedy situations where someone has not complied with the Civil law.


How long do you think it will take to go through the system you are endorsing and what are the chances of a successful outcome?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

Collaborate
Posts: 1778
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by Collaborate » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:26 am

arborlad wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:16 am
Morgan Sweet wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:54 am
You are quite right in saying that the court system is there to remedy situations where someone has not complied with the Civil law.


How long do you think it will take to go through the system you are endorsing and what are the chances of a successful outcome?
These are the questions to ask.

I'd also add - what will it cost? - what will the other side's costs be if you lose? - what would it cost you to erect a fence of your choosing? - is it worth the risk (ie with similar odds of what you stand to gain v lose, would you bet the same money in a casino?)

Morgan Sweet
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:47 pm

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by Morgan Sweet » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:45 am

arborlad wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:16 am
Morgan Sweet wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:54 am
You are quite right in saying that the court system is there to remedy situations where someone has not complied with the Civil law.


How long do you think it will take to go through the system you are endorsing and what are the chances of a successful outcome?
I do not know,I'm not a Solicitor; do you know?

arborlad
Posts: 8308
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by arborlad » Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:22 pm

SmallWelshBarn wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:55 pm
Franky I am more than happy to take this to court and let a judge decide on the definition of stock proof any one know any case law on this ?



The circumstances where wild boar will be considered 'stock', are simply not present here.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

SmallWelshBarn
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:34 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 8
Number of topics per page: 8

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by SmallWelshBarn » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:42 pm

If a tree falls the fence is damaged the trust must fix it if a boar breaks in and damages the fence they must fix it no difference.
Last half of the fence line previously replaced buy the trust contains barb wire top and bottom.
They set the standard by installing the barb in a second section.
Barb on the bottom of a fence prevents pigs from pushing up the stock fence it also stops sheep pushing their heads under the fence:
I would not use a solicitor to take this to court I’m quite confident in my own ability to deal with any proceedings.
It will be down to a judge to define stock proof. I’m confident the fencing in place is not stock proof.
I have moved my stock from that section of land until the matter is resolved.

Morgan Sweet
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:47 pm

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by Morgan Sweet » Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:17 pm

There appears to be somewhat of a consensus here that it would not be wise to take the Woodland Trust to court over this matter. In saying that, however, I do wonder what would have been the reaction of the Woodland Trust if it was the OP's responsibility to maintain the fence. The Law should apply equally to all and I do wish the OP all the best in his endevours but I would advise him first to consult a Solicitor to check his case.

SwitchRich
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:34 am

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by SwitchRich » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:08 am

SmallWelshBarn wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:42 pm
If a tree falls the fence is damaged the trust must fix it if a boar breaks in and damages the fence they must fix it no difference.
Last half of the fence line previously replaced buy the trust contains barb wire top and bottom.
They set the standard by installing the barb in a second section.
Barb on the bottom of a fence prevents pigs from pushing up the stock fence it also stops sheep pushing their heads under the fence:
I would not use a solicitor to take this to court I’m quite confident in my own ability to deal with any proceedings.
It will be down to a judge to define stock proof. I’m confident the fencing in place is not stock proof.
I have moved my stock from that section of land until the matter is resolved.
Kinda seems like you are pissing into the wind on this one. Why not write a letter and say "mind if I stick some barb wire to your fence?"
Is a reasonable request and if they decline then consider taking action if you are so confident.

Sarumguy
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:16 am

Re: Fencing covenant

Post by Sarumguy » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:41 pm

Running up post count

Post Reply