Public rights of way

[umontu]

Hey guys,
had a quick search and couldn't find any information on this or previous posts relating to this, apologies if there is one.

Who is responsible for maintaining a public right of way over a railway line? Is it the railway, the local council or local government?

So far what I've found seems to be related, understandably, to farmers, most seem to suggest barriers and handrails are the local government.

Just curious.
Thanks

 

[DaveNewcastle]

the local council or local government?

Since the abolition of the English RDA's, I'm not sure what distinction that could be.

I strongly advise calling the local Council's Highways Department for clarification. They may, depending on the Council's internal structure, refer you to an Assets Mananger or even an external Agency, but they should have the Register of Assets and Rights in their area of Governance.

Some railway structures may be the responsibility of Network Rail, BRRB or another body, but if it really is a Right of Way, then the Local Authority will be maintinaing the records.

 

[Bald Rick]

For level crossings, generally speaking, the fences, gates, and everything in between is maintained by Network Rail. This includes signage and any equipment at the crossing.

The crossing approaches are the responsibility of whoever owns the road / track / path; this is the relevant highway authority if it is a public road or right of way. Otherwise it is in private hands.

For bridges over the railway it is usually the highway authority for public roads / rights of way, the private owners for private bridges.

 

[stockport1]

Hey guys,
had a quick search and couldn't find any information on this or previous posts relating to this, apologies if there is one.

Who is responsible for maintaining a public right of way over a railway line? Is it the railway, the local council or local government?

So far what I've found seems to be related, understandably, to farmers, most seem to suggest barriers and handrails are the local government.

Just curious.
Thanks

dunno.

right of way i believe is common law.law of the land. not part of statue law (maritime admiralty law/contract law/law of the sea).

the common law is the most superior law and it would be for you to call the police to enforce/uphold the common law to allow right of way.

if access is denied you would find remedy by suing the party denying right of way.(tort)

being legal fictions/entities network rail/council/govt have no say in these matters.

i may be wrong on this any lawyers on here?

 

[Greenback]

For level crossings, generally speaking, the fences, gates, and everything in between is maintained by Network Rail. This includes signage and any equipment at the crossing.

The crossing approaches are the responsibility of whoever owns the road / track / path; this is the relevant highway authority if it is a public road or right of way. Otherwise it is in private hands.

For bridges over the railway it is usually the highway authority for public roads / rights of way, the private owners for private bridges.

I agree with this analysis. Rights of way can be created in several ways, but the basic legal principle is that the landowner is responsible for its upkeep and maintenance.

I would suggets trying to find out who ownes the land in the first instance.

 

[billio]

Two pretty scary examples of footpaths crossing railway lines are in or near Copmanthorpe, just south of York. These crossing have lights to indicate when it is safe to cross which I believe are integrated with the signalling. So these crossings are Network Rail's responsibility.

Scary because you wait next to the line whilst the trains roar past, the line is a gentle curve so you can't see for yourself if anything is coming and sometimes the Green light for Go is only showing for a few seconds.

 

[umontu]

Thanks for the responses to all.

It's more of a curious question, just to see who would be responsible for barriers, fences and signage.

Nothing serious at all, so no need to contact police stockport1.

DaveNewcastle, in terms of local government and council I mean for example where I live. Lancashire County Council is my local government, Fylde borough Council is my local council.

 

[SWTCommuter]

It is the responsibility of the landowner, as explained on the Lancashire County Council website http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?siteid=4654&pageid=29408&e=e

Landowner’s Duty
It is the responsibility of the landowner to maintain any permitted gaps, gates and stiles and not to obstruct the public rights of way. It is normally the responsibility of the adjacent landowner to keep their boundary hedges, trees, walls or fences from encroaching onto the right of way, to reinstate the surface of the path following the ploughing a cross-field path and to keep it free of crops.

There's more information about the legal status of rights of way on the Ramblers Association website
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/rights_of_way/knowledge_portal/rights_of_way_law/basics_of_row_law

Hope this helps

 

[brianthegiant]

I agree that in general footpath equipment in general has to be maintained by the landowner, though I think in the case of the national parks,(where there is a lot of wear & tear) some sort of assistance is provided by the parks authority.
Signage is usually provided by the County Council, unless the landowner decides to add their own 'guidance'.

@Stockport1, I think the technical term is civil law rather than common law, for example the offence of tresspass is civil law, so the landowner would have to launch a private prosecution against the trespasser and the police would not get involved.

I don't think civil law is the same thing as common law, eg a 'common husband'.

However there is the newer offence of 'aggravated trespass' largely brought in to target travellers & environmental protestors; this is a criminal offence & so would result in police action & a public prosecution.

For footpaths which are blocked or in disrepair, I'm not sure if thats civil/criminal law?

If a footpath is in poor condition / overgrown / poorly signposted this should be reported to the footpaths and rights of way officer of the County Council, who will install new signs or get landowner to make repairs etc.

hope this helps, Brian

 

[Proud Salopian]

dunno.

right of way i believe is common law.law of the land. not part of statue law (maritime admiralty law/contract law/law of the sea).

the common law is the most superior law and it would be for you to call the police to enforce/uphold the common law to allow right of way.

if access is denied you would find remedy by suing the party denying right of way.(tort)

being legal fictions/entities network rail/council/govt have no say in these matters.

i may be wrong on this any lawyers on here?

Yes I have studied law and have my head in my hands after reading this post.

Please don't comment on the law if you have NO idea what you're writing about.

Sorry to be so blunt, but almost everything you have written is wrong! :roll:

As for the original question: I don't know all the ins-and-outs of rights of way law, but the first point of call for anything relating to rights of way (in England) is your county council (or unitary authority where there is no county council). If you find a right of way obstructed, inform them. Do not waste police time - it is not a criminal offence to obstruct a right of way UNLESS you have been ordered by a court to remove an obstruction and then have not (it is then contempt of court).

I would imagine that Network Rail are responsible for crossings over a railway (it will be dealt with in some statute or statutory instrument... or several!) BUT there are of course many examples where the county council/unitary authority is responsible, for example most (if not all) road bridges are their responsibility.

A final point is that there will be some crossings of the railway that are not public rights of way, but instead are private rights (created by an easement or a covenant) held by particular land owners. That's a totally different 'kettle of fish'.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For level crossings, generally speaking, the fences, gates, and everything in between is maintained by Network Rail. This includes signage and any equipment at the crossing.

The crossing approaches are the responsibility of whoever owns the road / track / path; this is the relevant highway authority if it is a public road or right of way. Otherwise it is in private hands.

For bridges over the railway it is usually the highway authority for public roads / rights of way, the private owners for private bridges.

Yep, this post pretty much sums it up.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's more information about the legal status of rights of way on the Ramblers Association website
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/rights_of_way/knowledge_portal/rights_of_way_law/basics_of_row_law

Hope this helps

Splendid - I'll give that a read myself now!

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just to add: there is often, very understandably, confusion regarding the terms "common law" and "civil law". This is because they mean different things in different contexts!

Firstly, the distinction internationally between those countries who use common law and those that use civil law. Basically anywhere that bases its legal system on that of England is a common law country and anywhere that bases its legal system on that of Napoleonic France is a civil law country. Scotland is sometimes regarded as having a hybrid system - though in practice its very much a common law country.

Then there are two meanings of "common law" within English law itself:

1. The system, allowed generally in English law, of "judge-made" law (or "case law") and the laws made that way.

2. A distinct set of laws and ethos within the wider English law, as opposed to "equity law". These two different types of law even used to have their own courts, but they were merged into one court system in the Victorian era.

There then arises further complication by the meaning of "civil law". It can be:

1. As mentioned, a country can be described as using a civil law system rather than a common law system.

2. A distinct set of laws and ethos within the wider English law (alongside common and equity) - no longer practised except for some very specific areas (maritime and I think ecclesiastical).

3. As opposed to "criminal" - private action is sometimes referred to as "civil action".

So you can see why there is confusion!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

From a purely railway point of view and as stated previously, all the fencing, signage, telephones, lights and surfacing are Network Rail's responsibility (or the relevant infrastructure controller, UK only) to maintain in a safe manner, though the local highway authority retains the approvals of signs on its roads.

NR also tend to reserve the right to build anything that goes on their land.

However, who pays and who has rights to use the crossing are two totally different issues again.

Some crossings are provided only for a limited list of registered users ("accomodation" or "occupation" crossings) and these are not (generally) public rights of way. If you don't have legitimate business directly related the authorised user then you are breaking a railway by-law and are liable to prosecution and a fine. Such crossings are often maintained at a cost to the users.

 

[stockport1]

Sorry to be so blunt, but almost everything you have written is wrong! :roll:

Can you provide proof of claim that what i have stated is wrong?

If not then it stands does it not?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
civil law is contract law - maritime admiralty law/roman law/ etc.
It requires an agreement or consent.

in this country is inferior to common law.

The common law jurisdiction is first.

Road traffic act is admiralty law. it requires consent.- your signature.
(you submit(beg) an application for registration(hand over equitable title))

(your car is registered - you are REGISTERED KEEPER - dvla is the OWNER)
thats why they can take and crush what you think is your property if your tax expires.
(your house is registered at the land registry....think on)

can anybody here swear that i am breaking the *LAW* if i use my car with out a licence?
there is legislation (legal) and there is law (lawful)
legislation is not law but has colour of law. - it requires consent.
everytime you register for something you give up some rights for some percieved benefit.

in times gone by gypsies were not birth registered and thats why most of the time the legal system could not touch them unless they had broken the common law.(murder assault,theft etc)

 

[Greenback]

Can you provide proof of claim that what i have stated is wrong?

It is up to the person who made the statement to back it up if challenged.

If not then it stands does it not?[.QUOTE]

If I say that there is life on Saturn, no one can prove me wrong, but without me supporting my statement with fact, it doesn't stand as being correct.

there is legislation (legal) and there is law (lawful)
legislation is not law but has colour of law. - it requires consent.
everytime you register for something you give up some rights for some percieved benefit.

There has been a lot of internet debate on this issue. I have never agreed with those who put it forward, but as with life on Saturn, it is difficult to prove the opinion wrong.

 

[221129]

Can you provide proof of claim that what i have stated is wrong?

If not then it stands does it not?

You said you may be wrong. And someone who has the apropriate knowledge has come up and said.

 

[90019]

civil law is contract law - maritime admiralty law/roman law/ etc.
It requires an agreement or consent.

You're not one of those moronic 'freemen of the land' prats are you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Road traffic act is admiralty law. it requires consent.- your signature.
(you submit(beg) an application for registration(hand over equitable title))

Oh god, you are.

Right, I'm not going into much depth with this, but this whole 'we're allowed to travel' crap that FMOTL like to sprout is a load of sh*te.
What you conveniently like to forget is that the roads are not just there - they have been built, and they're owned by those who built them.
You are not allowed to travel on them without the consent of the owners, and in this case, it is done by the DVLA/DSA in the form of having to have a driving licence and registering your car for use on their roads.
If you only use your car on land that is not publically owned, then it doesn't need registered.

If you don't like it, walk.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

dunno.

right of way i believe is common law.law of the land. not part of statue law (maritime admiralty law/contract law/law of the sea).

the common law is the most superior law and it would be for you to call the police to enforce/uphold the common law to allow right of way.

if access is denied you would find remedy by suing the party denying right of way.(tort)

being legal fictions/entities network rail/council/govt have no say in these matters.

i may be wrong on this any lawyers on here?

Oh christ, not a Freeman on the land?

EDIT: Ah, I see you are.

 

[umontu]

Thanks to all for all the responses, I now have a better and much more informed position in what I wanted to know. That's all I wanted out of this thread.

 

[jopsuk]

Oh christ, not a Freeman on the land?

EDIT: Ah, I see you are.

I love them. So amusing. So wrong. So much more likely to lose any case that goes to court. One cannot simply opt out of the laws of the land when those that enforce said laws think you're speaking *****. The legal equivalent of homeopathy.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I love them. So amusing. So wrong. So much more likely to lose any case that goes to court. One cannot simply opt out of the laws of the land when those that enforce said laws think you're speaking *****. The legal equivalent of homeopathy.

Have you seen their forum? It's well worth a read for a good laugh (until you realise that these people think they are right!). They believe that by putting words in capitals and writing FACT! after every sentence makes it so.

 

[90019]

Have you seen their forum? It's well worth a read for a good laugh (until you realise that these people think they are right!). They believe that by putting words in capitals and writing FACT! after every sentence makes it so.

There's a rather good (if a tad tedious) video in 3 parts on youtube of a man with a Mercedes who has been pulled over by the Police, and there's about 45 minutes of video of him talking in circles at the officers, giving them bits of paper, deliberately misunderstanding and changing around their words (like when they ask if he understands, he say he doesn't stand under what they've said :roll.
In the end, he's arrested, his car is seized, and I believe it's since been cubed.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

There's a rather good (if a tad tedious) video in 3 parts on youtube of a man with a Mercedes who has been pulled over by the Police, and there's about 45 minutes of video of him talking in circles at the officers, giving them bits of paper, deliberately misunderstanding and changing around their words (like when they ask if he understands, he say he doesn't stand under what they've said :roll. In the end, he's arrested, his car is seized, and I believe it's since been cubed.

There's also a court judgement on the internet where someone tried to use this claptrap in order to (quite sadly) stop their children being taken into care. The judge was quite polite but damning in the judgement.

The whole freeman thing is based on some bizarre and absurd interpretation of legal words (and even normal words!) in order to fit in with their deluded beliefs.

I'll have to dig out the Youtube video where one of them tries to explain what they call "legal fictions" (apparently a birth certificate means the government owns you!). It's well worth a watch - a good laugh!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

So, correct me if I'm wrong (I know I'm off-topic) but is it this person's contention that a compliance requirement in a published act of parliament, ratified by a government elected under the constitution and enacted by the constitutionally appointed monarch, is not a right and proper law?

I may have to track him down and assert my (apparent) right to occupy the property he claims he doesn't own (since his argument denies the possibility of of right of title and the deeds to his house are thus meaningless). Anyone for a barbie?

I also hope he never rings 999 or wants his bin emptying ...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

In essence, yes.

Google Freemen On The Land to see some of their rumblings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Fascinating.

Reads like the whiny proto-bully at school who always had a (they thought) clever comeback for why they weren't at fault.

 

[michael769]

There has been a lot of internet debate on this issue. I have never agreed with those who put it forward, but as with life on Saturn, it is difficult to prove the opinion wrong.

It is easy to prove them wrong - such assertions violate the Supremacy of Parliament.

Unfortunately many people are taken in by this unconstitutional freeman garbage and end up landing themselves in prison as a result.

 

[Greenback]

But they do not recognise Parliament or statute so they do not recognise that supremacy!

 

[90019]

I've just hit on a new moneymaking scheme - I'm going to go and burgle all of the FMOTL houses I can find.
They won't call the Police, so it's all good.

 

[boing_uk]

Just a quick clarification on the "structures over the railway" part.

It depends on who built the bridge and under what powers. Most* existing overbridge structures are the responsibility of Network Rail to maintain. However the fabric of the highway (i.e. that bit above any waterproofing layer, like the carriageway surface but not including the parapets) is the responsibility of the local highway authority.

*Some overbridges built by highway authorities remain their responsibility to maintain, such as motorway bridges over the railway. But even then, the case is not exactly clear cut.

At level crossings, everything inside the railway boundary is the responsibility of Network Rail. Everything outside of that, it is the responsibility of the highway authority to ensure everything is in order and that depends on the category of the right of way as to what that may involve.

 

[Proud Salopian]

Can you provide proof of claim that what i have stated is wrong?

If not then it stands does it not?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
civil law is contract law - maritime admiralty law/roman law/ etc.
It requires an agreement or consent.

in this country is inferior to common law.

The common law jurisdiction is first.

Road traffic act is admiralty law. it requires consent.- your signature.
(you submit(beg) an application for registration(hand over equitable title))

(your car is registered - you are REGISTERED KEEPER - dvla is the OWNER)
thats why they can take and crush what you think is your property if your tax expires.
(your house is registered at the land registry....think on)

can anybody here swear that i am breaking the *LAW* if i use my car with out a licence?
there is legislation (legal) and there is law (lawful)
legislation is not law but has colour of law. - it requires consent.
everytime you register for something you give up some rights for some percieved benefit.

in times gone by gypsies were not birth registered and thats why most of the time the legal system could not touch them unless they had broken the common law.(murder assault,theft etc)

Frankly, I hope you go to jail one day.

How can people be so utterly clueless?! Sad really. Actually, it's not a case of being "clueless" I suppose, but just pure arrogance. These sorts of people either don't want to accept the law or think they're above it all. They then think that if enough people spout nonsense online the law will become what they think it is/want it to be. :roll:

I hope one day you're in front of a judge and (s)he will belittle you in ways you cannot imagine.

I mean, what's really funny is in your first post your write "dunno" and "i may be wrong on this... any lawyers on here?" so you do realise that you don't know what you're talking about. I then don't even attempt to explain where you're going wrong as I found it easier to explain the law from scratch. (I particularly love how you keep coming up with admiralty law... the clue's in the name: it applies to ships that use the high seas, not here on land! And yes, even admiralty law is affected by Parliamentary statute.) Anyway, you just carry on ignoring lawyers and the law (I am not a lawyer btw, but have studied law at university) and you'll soon find out where it will land you.

 

[AndrewP]

I will type this slowly and carefully so you may understand some basic FACTS as you have posted a lot of inaccuracies which could put lives at risk.

(your car is registered - you are REGISTERED KEEPER - dvla is the OWNER)
thats why they can take and crush what you think is your property if your tax expires.

The DVLA do not own your car - they do have the power to confiscate it in the event of specific defaults

(your house is registered at the land registry....think on)

Are you suggesting the DVLA will come and crush your house?

can anybody here swear that i am breaking the *LAW* if i use my car with out a licence?
there is legislation (legal) and there is law (lawful)
legislation is not law but has colour of law. - it requires consent.
everytime you register for something you give up some rights for some percieved benefit.

Yes and you are also forgetting that the driving license was brought in to protect life and limb - does this not matter to you?

in times gone by gypsies were not birth registered and thats why most of the time the legal system could not touch them unless they had broken the common law.(murder assault,theft etc)

Thank you for that borderline racist comment.

If you think I am being patronising and sarcastic you are right but when someone makes comments as dangerous as yours they deserve it.

Just because you don't like the law it does not mean you can ignore it (even with spurious justification).