These workers met with BTP a few minutes after they left in this video and made the complaint ☹ We appreciate your support in whichever way it comes and are glad you are here for this journey. Ian & Liz www.gofundme.com/f/588854-altnabreac-cover-up
It would be beneficial for all, if you could timestamp these videos in the description, or title (even just part 1, 2 etc...) as this looks like an earlier video as one video shows the path having already being tarmacked?
@@vandammesque Thanks yes, I just put in description that it just before the BTP came. I'm actually going to do a playlist and put it in chronological order.
Ffs arguments for the sake of arguments. IF YOU BELIEVE you are correct in your position, then baricade vehicle access NOT pedestrian access and force them to take you to court for obstruction of access. You dont need a go fund me, etc, as the court case will be brought against you... you can then have your day in court and have this matter finalised. At this point, it is like some stupid petty dispute.....stop engaging with them and force a court case
Network Rail would probably just bulldoze the barricade, but i agree with you in getting Network Rail to take them to court to settle this dispute. But i think while the dispute is ongoing no work should be carried out while the land is still in contention.
Let’s spell it out - Network rail have responsibility to maintain the walk through to the station- as such they have every right to access it to carry out their lawful responsibility. If someone slips and breaks their ankle - who should they sue - you, or network rail? I’m surmising that your answer would be network rail? Or are you going to take responsibility?
@@beeftec5862 That doesnt mean anything, do you reply to everysingle thing and do you notice everysingle comment. BE an adult. Guy/girl asked a question that was not answered and you used that opportunity to feed your vamperic needs. Guilt needs evidence do you have that?
If in Scotland I would suggest there is no right of way. They are very limited. Access for utilities are usually by wayleaves. Rights of way tend to be between village and church. They are highly unusual.
@@Carlos-im3hn it ain't legal if it's in dispute whether it's legal. That's what in dispute means. If it was as simple as access, why are NR bothering to falsely make claims about ownership?
@@Carlos-im3hn I don't know what exactly is specified in the title or the public access, but building stuff is not mere access. According to other comments here they want to build a building
I don’t think you people have grasped the Caithness way of life, a favour for a favour and all that, if you were more accommodating to the maintenance team I am sure they would do “additional” maintenance that would benefit you also, on a side note, Altnabreac is pronounced “Alt-na-brek”, not “Alt-na-break”
This is about Network Trying to steal our land, we've noticed an uptick in discrimination and racism, which makes me wonder if you would be supporting us if we were native Scottish? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have supported the atrocities of the Highland clearances, but happy to turn a blind eye when it's us. Also, we are the ONLY ones that have cared enough about Alt-na-brek and the landfill with tyres, fridges, freezers and birds dropping dead out from the tree's to do anything about it, which is an utter disgrace that you have nothing to say about 'your own country'.
Absolute nonsense, no suggestion of racism or discrimination at all, it seems to be the usual line that comes out when a common sense suggestion is made, the use of a driveway is way different than us being driven off our land for sheep, in Caithness we try our best to avoid confrontation and always look for a mutually beneficial solution to problems, as I said, if they used your drive, I am sure they would repair and maintain it going forward which would be to your advantage. The railway has only been there for around 150 years, yet there has only been a problem for the last three, I wonder what changed? My feeling is your struggle has mercenary intent. You will lose any local support you may have.
@@johnbremner1453 I think you need to check all the facts before you make your posts, as Network Rail and the BTP have come along and said "We do not own our driveway", We will be making a video of Network Rails solicitor claiming to own our driveway in due course, which will put comments like yours to shame. Unless you are just claiming ignorance? if so get all the facts first. One rule for you and yours and another for everyone else!
@@johnbremner1453 'in Caithness we try our best to avoid confrontation and always look for a mutually beneficial solution to problems, as I said, if they used your drive, I am sure they would repair and maintain it going forward which would be to your advantage.' What do you think we were trying to do in this video? The straightforward solution to the problem is that Network Rail admit they do not own our driveway and admit they do need our permission and when the appropriate legal agreement is set up, they can have access. SIMPLE. It is Network Rail being difficult by falsely claiming to own land they do not!
@@ALTNABREAC these films of yours popped up on my UA-cam feed last night when I was looking for more interesting local content films to pass an evening. I did hear in the local grapevine in the past about some newcomers having an issue, so I thought I would watch one or two to see what it is all about. My take on it is that you are both confrontational and have elevated the problems you have by your attitude. You certainly both come across as confrontational in the videos and are also confrontational in your replies to my comments. Maybe I am ignorant to the entire picture as to what is going on, but to be honest I do not think I could sit through more than two videos of a couple of “Karen’s” making life difficult for themselves. If you have confidence in the solicitor who closed the sale of your property, you have nothing to worry about and let the legal system do its work. Your suggestions of racism and discrimination are also for the birds. Unlike some others around, I consider myself to be British and see no difference between anyone from the four nations, strangely I have relatives who live in each. As I said, my feeling is that your grievance is mercenary and your course will change upon some form of reward. I may do a bit more research to see if you have a “Go Fund Me” page. These seem to be fashionable these days for a quick pound.
At this point it just feels like your making a rod for your own back and to make youtube videos , if your really this pissed , go to court and let a judge / sherrif decide the outcome
Court costs money… They’ve been trying to deal with it for ages alone and now they’re asking for contributions towards the costs - I haven’t yet but will at some point, David needs new sling to deal with Goliath ;)
He's just someone who feels big with a camera like the majority of today's society can't say anything as he will do you with the camera footage feel sorry for today's employees no wonder they don't wanna do the jobs as got clowns like this filming em every 5 minutes
That's because NR cannot give the excuse they did not know! The workers wanted to 'just look' but they needed to know that what they looking at was NOT owned by NR and so they needed our permission. All the information given to the workers is already known by the head solicitor for NR who is giving false information to the workers that NR own our driveway and other land here. That solicitor is hiding away in his office....We do not want a confrontation, we want things done lawfully and the only way to do that is through COMMUNICATION. However, rather than communicating with us and dealing with things lawfully, NR sent their personal security guards BTP to us right after to try and get us arrested so they could get on land UNLAWFULLY. Is that the kind of behaviour you support from public workers and BTP....
And you all in this thread are just clasping at straws. You don't know these people. And the fact this shit happens all the time with big corporations. So why don't you duffers jog on and do some research
You say its a public walkway but then the gate is locked . At the end of the day its they are there to do a job and asked a simple question . Yet you barrage them for half an hour wasting time with information that has nothing to do with them .
Transport and Work Act 1992 gives them access anyway, ownership or not. Not sure what the big problem is, they just want to maintain the railway and station. It’s an active station and you chose to live there
Just one question - What are you going to do with the "Go fund me" money if the work goes ahead (And as we all know it almost certainly will) and you don't get a solicitor? As yet I have not heard any mention of you getting a solicitor to fight your corner so please answer the question - Will you refund it or just keep it?
Hello, thank you for your comment. We hope to use the donations to pursue recourse at the civil court to resolve this dispute lawfully and surveyor costs etc. We will ensure that we document exactly what the donations will be used for and really appreciate the support of those who can see what Network Rail is trying to do to us.
A very well known UA-camr did a similar thing a few years ago and set up a funding page so that he could take legal action against the BBC...he raised many thousands of pounds I seem to remember which I don't believe was used for legal fees when he ended up in court accused of harassment and staking (I think it was) and was subsequently jailed...I seem to remember that he represented himself...you probably know who I mean...I'm sure his name would rind a "bell"!
@@Hubster65 Yes i also followed the Bellfield case. He also represented himself in the case which i thought was stupid, but did he do that because know one would represent him ?
We had a footpath from the end of our drive to adjoining land. It was ONLY a footpath but various local organisations insisted it was a bridle way, which it legally was not. We had people on motorbikes and local horse clubs destroying our fences and gates to gain illegal access. We even had cars parking on our GARDEN to then walk along the path. I was threatened with violence on more than one occasion, we had a wooden gate destroyed twice with replacements at our expense. We even put a style in place at our expense which was subsequently destroyed. All this on a brand new house, the stress was immense at the time. The local paper had a large article about it on their front page implying that we were doing thing’s illegally. They did eventually print a retraction, one paragraph buried near the end of the paper ! I can truly sympathise with this couple, the number of people and misinformation we had to contend with was huge. We sorted it all out then moved 18 months later.
That was not a bridleway it was a byway open to all traffic and you tried and failed to get it overturned then moved out unless I’m mistaking your case for another very similar
To stop the hassle just let them do the work, and insist that any works that are carried out do not damage your property,and if they do they must reinstate simple!
What about the actual Title deeds? Those will show easements and talk about access too... Boundaries can mean almost nothing when rights of access and for infrastructure... How many times do you need to be told when it comes to that... You must have lived in a town all your lives. If you get hit with a DCO then you can be much worse off... You are sadly digging a hole and making it worse. Rights of access doesn't need them to own it... Network rail DO NOT NEED YOUR PERMISSION.... The station has been there before you were and whatever access has been in place for over a period of 20 years, even if it is before you owned it it becomes a permissive easement and you cannot fight it... YOU cannot land lock the station and they really do NOT need permission as they have a right to access part of the national infrastructure... The more I watch the more you have a problem that is not going to end the way you want or think it should end.
The title deeds and the map are clear. The boundary is in the middle of the road of the extension of the access road going from the cattle grid to the station. They onlyhave mutal ownership of that road and network rail and the public have a right of access to it. They do own their garden fully but not the road part.
@@shanraw1 So the path or access which goes to the station can be accessed by NR with a vehicle for any work they may need to do. The cut through they have installed at 90 degrees to the public access is part of their right to maintain, renew, repair or replace whatever is on the NR station. We have access to the farm land opposite our house to do the same with our sewage system and if we get blocked or have access refused to get onto the land with equipment needed to do that work then the farm would be in breach and could be prosecuted. That never usually happens because if you live in the countryside you know how these things work. If you come from the town, its a whole new world and boundaries mean different things in many ways when access is needed for utilities, rights of public access etc..
@@Carlos-im3hn Watch the Gone in 60 seconds video titled.. @NetworkRail PROPERTY TITLE: CTH7726 STATION COTTAGE, ALTNABREAC, HALKIRK KW126UR @ALTNABREAC Please read Burdens and the second one as it is quite clear it is in regards to the railways and there property on that site. The area in blue (their driveway) has both pedestrian and vehicular access for NR. Also there is 0.34 acres of land within the pink area owned by the rail company. They are 100% in the wrong sadly...
I feel kind of caught up on the situation but when I went looking at older news media there is this older story about you getting arressted for blocking the tracks, do you think you could tell us why that happened as I've never seen anyone explain why you were on the track, I guess if its unrelated to the present situation it doesn't matter but I'd think it probably is related and am surprised its never came up apart from you mentioning the baille conditions in this vid. (sorry if it has been explained and I missed it, I have watched all the vids but I don't recall it beign mentioned.)
@@ALTNABREAC why are you not allowed to talk about it? This reads like a half truth, when you say you haven't been found guilty of anything, and what you're really (not, but should be) saying is that charges are still pending and that it hasn't come to trial yet.
@@ALTNABREAC I’ve not seen anything that says they own it… just that they have a right to use it and there is a duty to make sure it’s safe whilst they do so. If you’re not going to upgrade it to a level that they deem safe, then the onus is on them to do it. But you’re stopping them? Nice to see the cause of the dispute that meant I couldn’t visit ABC when I had a ticket last month.
@user-ed4jf1eu5p they surextalk about ownership of their land a lot. Even considering damage to their land & Trespass. I see it like this. NR disputed their ownership of land. Their fear is that NR could just stomp over all the areas they believe to be theirs. So the dispute could just keep going on and on.
@@Carlos-im3hnyeah that last sentence might be an idea tbf - let them do what they want, damage and build etc and then once they win in court, claim compensation and any damage reverted etc They’re stressing themselves out and can’t actually stop anything in the moment anyway or the police arrest Although I’m a stubborn c**t and wouldn’t but logically it makes sense haha
At 9:19, he mentioned "bail conditions", sounds to me that there is already a legal case ongoing. It would be interesting to know what it was and what the bailmconditions are.
If that gate is providing public right of way access to the station why are you locking it? You really need to employ a Chartered Land Surveyor to plot out your boundaries in those areas of dispute. In the mean time, if you're convinced you own the land and drive way access then put hydraulic bollards in the road that you can lift up as and when needed then no one can gain access without your permission. Get your solicitor to write to them formerly and refuse permission for them to access your land, build or construct anything on your land period.
Errr... you purchased a property next to a railway station...of course NR needs access! I don't think that NR have dealt with this situation very well..but not sure wht this can't be settled amicably!
Exactly- if it is a public path to the station- one would think that network rail have every right to access in order to carry out its lawful responsibility. These pair need to grow up. As I’ve said before- the f someone injured themselves on ‘their driveway’ are they going to foot the bill - I highly doubt it.
I thought that small side gate was a public access footpath to the platform, isn't that what you said. So why was that small side gate padlocked if that's the case? Are you locking public footpath gates? I don't get it.
My understanding is that this is not where NR are attempting to gain access and neither are they asserting those rights whatever they might be. In any event the blue strip does not extend to what appears to be the western boundary.
I haven’t bothered watching the vlog, i thought the couple were going to upload their land registry plan and documents. As others have noted, It is clear from historical photographs and videos that the boundary fences/hedges have been modified and /or removed principally to the platform side of the house. The question is did these alterations reflect changes made to revisions on the land registry plan or just undertaken on site by this couple or the previous owners. Were these alterations to the boundaries agreed with the Railtrack (now Network Rail) or British Rail depending on when they were carried out or have previous owners claimed the land under adverse possession rules which differ for railway land and Scottish law. Have the licensed conveyancers or more likely solicitors acted honourably or made an error in the purchase. I suspect not or this a couple would of taken that up with them soon after purchase, particularly as she is an ex police officer. As many others have said there is potentially way more to this than the one sided view presented here and although taking a legal route should always be the last resort, it appears they passed that point sometime ago. Interesting that old photos show a five bar gate, presumably for vehicular access on the old? boundary fence line that used to run parallel to the track/platform on the line of the NW face of their house. Often the house wall facing the track is set as the boundary line, sometimes with a narrow ransom strip or sometimes just with a legal right to access that elevation/roof for maintenance purposes, presumably when the old station/master house was parcelled off and sold by British Rail?
Seem like nice people and does appear there may be ground for dispute re the land but there are a couple of red flags with behaviour: 1) why arrested for trespassing on the railway 2) if there is a public right of access, why was the gate locked! They wouldn’t need permission to access the footpath…
Hello, thank you for your comment. In answer to your 'red flags' - We have not been found guilty of anything. There is a public right of pedestrian only access to the station via the side gate. It is kept unlocked but the lock was put on that day to prevent NR and BTP from just walking onto our land as NR were not there in the capacity of members of the public but professional capacity. They therefore did not have a legal right to use it.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h ooh, you're wrong there. The "public right of way" is expansive rather than restrictive. A person who is traversing a public right of way for business purposes, eg. a person on their commute to work, is still a member of the public. You have no right to restrict access to a public right of way and you are not the arbiter of whose business is permitted that right. It's simply not YOUR business. Sorry.
Just because you’re arrested doesn’t mean anything especially when the opponent has a private police force happy to abuse the law and intimidate people
@@simonh Have you watched the videos? Network Rail piled onto our private driveway in diggers, vehicles and an excavator! This is nothing to do with the public right of access! The public right of access does not allow vehicular access anyway. Furthermore, as regards the public right of way, like the Land Reform access rights, public access rights must be used responsibly and the private land owner can refuse access to those who are acting in threatening, intimidating, and harassing conduct towards the owner of the land. These rights are not carte blanche! This is what NR is doing to us - harassing us and we have every right to prevent them from coming onto to our land. That is the law. Please research the law properly and get all facts before providing your ill-informed opinion. It is a shame you're in support of the bully boy companies.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h this is bait and switch. The point I made stands. You cannot restrict access to a public right of way, period. How someone acts while accessing the right of way may be subject to sanction, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you can restrict access to a public right of way. You can't. Don't do it.
So, ... They want to build a walking path to the station? It looks like they've marked it out... What is the dispute, you want the path somewhere else, or you don't want it at all? Or what?
It’s a confusing situation and nobody seems to know what’s going on but NR mentioned wanting to build a building of some kind previously so it’s more than just a path/road
@@thoughtfulalbatros9683 NR want to replace the dilapidated station shelter with a better building for passengers before re-opening the station according to various media sources available online with a quick search.
@@clareowen2047 it’ll probably cost them 20-30k+ to take NR to court - have you got that lying around? Crowd funding is an invaluable tool when your opponent has vast resources you don’t
I would have told just Ian for now to piss off and come back with identification I wouldn't let anyone on my land without knowing exactly who they are.
Would it not just be far far easier to let them on the land, do the job they need for the railway and it'll be over. This is all a bit silly really. Just let them do the job and it's over.
@@ALTNABREAC exactly, I'd imagine access for the machinery would be different situation if NR didn't claim land ownership, this hand written map they have sounds sketchy (pun intended)!
@@leviandronicous4193 I'm really really not, perhaps I've misunderstood the entire thing. Seems to me the Rail workers just need to do some mainetnance to keep the system running.
@@ALTNABREAC What land? It's a railway track, what are they going to do with it? Build a hotel? It's just a nonsense for You Tube clicks - for which I've fallen for. :)
In my opinion, by entering in to conversation with them you may unintentionally give them certain rights. Be very careful what you say and i agree with another supporter who stated that the first guy said he was just an observer.
Hello i am a former BR/RT/NR former AMI/MOM and former signalman recently retired. Just to let you know NR staff aren't allowed to speak on camera if it is to be broadcast. Its a disciplinary offence, Only the NR media team are allowed to speak to the media or if like yourself you are broadcasting your film. You can film them working but they genuinely cannot talk to you if that film is to be broadcast. Might i suggest you get your conveyancing solicitor to check with NR the access agreement. As we have a number of access points owned by private individuals but the railway retained the right of access. It really upset one man but his conveyancing solicitor had missed it. I hope me pointing out that NR staff are not allowed to talk to anyone if the film is to broadcast is helpful I would ask the NR media team down. I hope this matter is settled amicably
2 місяці тому+60
A court order is required to stop this harassment.
They do not need one, they physically cannot stop right of access. They are just being obstructive, in this video , he blatantly says, there was a right of access agreement. To be honest you held be accountable for the lost revenue and time wasting you have caused just to people that are trying to do their job. Scotland is a wonderful place, please stop spoiling it
I have not watched all the videos, nor do I intend to as they are akin to the proverbial bat shit. This seems to be a very simple property ownership issue, to be resolved through the legal system and have no entertainment value whatsoever.
I’m on your side 100% it’s your land and they are taking the piss big time but you don’t have to explain the situation every time to every person and repeat the same stuff over and over The guy just wanted a quick look at the path to the station All that today was unnecessary Your solicitor is dealing with it Your saying the same stuff in every video and I agree with what your saying and understand the difficulty and emotion of the situation but repeating the same stuff over and over is getting frustrating
It's not petty. It's a principle. The old saying "give them an inch and they will take a mile" comes to mind. Once a right has been established it becomes difficult to undo and this can affect future use of the land. I have no connection to the Altnabreac family but I do have a desire to see all parties treated fairly according to Scottish law.
@@ALTNABREACSurely you’re not “giving them your land”….just access…which they can use from time to time…and I’m sure they would inform you in advance if and when they needed the access??
@@pennywise146 You think a corporation would give advanced notice? If they give access without going through the courts, then the Network will use that access 24/7. This has to go through the courts.
I've been following this since it first popped up, and I've been competently on your side up to now. Today, I'm almost on the fence. This latest instalment has confused me a little, the overall tone throughout this video seems to show you on side and willing to grant access, right down to advising where vehicles and equipment could be left while works are carried out. The entire interaction seemed pretty amicable and cooperative. I can't see how that escalated into a compaint with BTP in attendance unless that cooperation was later revoked. This video has left me with some questions. 1. When you purchased the property I would assume its proximity to the Station and the public right of access was clearly defined which I assume included access to the station for maintainence purposes which you alluded to in your mention of a prior agreement with the previous owners so it would be no surprise access would be required at some point to carry out said maintenance? 2. You mention you had offered terms for a temporary access agreement with NR, obviously they were rejected but what were those terms, and why were they rejected? 3. You mention in the video about the previous "leasing" arrangement for access, did you ask that NR pay you for access to carry out this maintenance to the station? That's the undertonal impression this video has given. If that's the case I can almost understand NR playing hard ball though please correct me if that impression is incorrect. I completely agree that BTPs involvement and the damaging of tour property is unlawful it should have been dealt with in a civil court before any action was taken however I do feel this could have been managed in a different way. You say that you benefit from the station being there and tou support the reopening of it, I would imagin in the process of making improvements you could benefit from those too. A memorandum of understanding could have been drafted to grant temporary access to conduct the maintenance which could have worked in favour of both parties.
To put simple, we had this meeting with NR and we said we would grant them a 'Temporary access agreement' which would of cost them, but they decided to send BTP to threaten to arrest me on my own land. I don't see how you do not understand? Watch the playlist on my channel, its events in chronological order.
@@ALTNABREAC I have watched the playlist and I've followed this chronologically. And as I said I've been on your side all the way through, I've also donated on your "just giving" page. Though up until now it's been unclear why you refused access in the first place. I completely agree that BTP have acted outside of their legal scope. I don't agree with intimidation or harassment in any circumstance I think they should be held accountable for that. I feel that's a separate issue now. You have known maintenance needed to be carried out which you have obstructed, at first glance seemingly out of principle but now more accurately out of principle because they've refused to pay you for access. I don't blame you for trying, plenty of us could all do with a little extra cash but at that point you could have tried to negotiate something else that benefits you and your property upgrading the pedestrian access for example or rerouting it so it doesn't go right past your front door. Any number of things which I'm sure they would have been more amenable to. At the worst you could have conceded, understanding that the maintainence and upgrades to the Station are for the greater good and directly benefit you anyway. I would have backed you all the way on principle but the revelation this has been triggered by an attempt at financial gain just sours the milk slightly. NR are not claiming they own your property only that they should have right of access to conduct the maintainence needed at the station. You need to be a little more transparent. In my opinion asking people support financially for legal aid that you will likely use to force NR to pay you for access so you can gain financially is a little underhanded..
Having seen the title deeds on another video. The path marked in blue (Your driveway) has pedestrian AND vehicular access for NR (British Railway board from 1969) so they have every right to come onto the land. There is also 0.34 acres of land in the area marked in pink which they have a right to access and maintain too. They also have the right to build there in regards to the operation of their station too. NR are correct they do own 0.34 acres of land within your boundary and have every right for pedestrian and vehicular access in regards the operation of their business. It seems you are in breach and breaking the law. I have said several times that countryside boundaries are not set in stone like ones in town due to things like utilities, sewage and infrastructure which is in or on land which has to be accessed. You seem to have either deleted or ignored the posts and keep being the victim when sadly you are in the wrong. I have said it before and will say it again. If you force then into getting a Development Consent Order you may lose more than you think and in this case it could be 0.34 acres and be forced to allow vehicular access on the land marked in blue at all times for ANY contractor needing access to the rail companies land. You should have stuck to living in a town if you wanted boundaries that are cut and dry.. Watch the Gone in 60 seconds video titled.. @NetworkRail PROPERTY TITLE: CTH7726 STATION COTTAGE, ALTNABREAC, HALKIRK KW126UR @ALTNABREAC Please read Burdens and the second one as it is quite clear it is in regards to the railways and there property on that site.
Ian has a very clean uniform and wears a helmet. Looks like a NR office waller. There is a right of way which they agree but like many landowners they have locked the gate and blocked the right of way. bad idea. I can see why BTP would turn up. Ownership of land does not mean there is no right of way. The vehicular access is chained off. It is a different point as to whether it is a vehicular right of way. There is a denial that there is anything but a pedestrian right of way. the argument that the estate is "authorised vehicles only" is moot, there can easily be an established vehicular right of way despite the signs. As NR are routinely using it is a good sign that there is a vehicular right of way. NR do not need permission to exercise access rights and vehicular rights of access. They are not going to buy the land. Talk of an access arrangement with the previous occupier?
As much as I think the houses owners are perhaps being a little difficult, and that NR are being bullyish, this is a really interesting series. Thanks for sharing.
See my footpath tale in the comments. They are NOT being difficult. Other people and organisations do use bullying tactics and involve lots of people at their end to confuse you as to who exactly is dealing with things. Been there,got the medal !
Buying a house with land with a pathway for ramblers at the end of the garden, is one thing. A corporation wants to access private property/land with vehicles and machinery at any day or time. You have to make them go through the courts, you have to have the courts decide what days/time they can access, damage caused etc. If you give a corporation an inch, they will absolutely take a mile. Would you want to give access 24/7 to a corporation to access your land any time they want?
I’m astonished that both NWR & QTS employees did not identify themselves, names and job titles. When I worked with NWR Operations, it was mandatory to provide your name & job description, on request.
@@stephenholmes1036 I retired after 38 years from Railway Signalling Operations in and around the Glasgow area, mostly. I do believe you are correct unless there’s been a rule change since 2017🤔
Jim, I don't know this case, But we always tried to have a good relationship with landowners. Some subbies let is down badly blocking entries etc. I'm not surprised planning didn't organise this properly and the legal team need to meet these people and sort this out. I'm surprised our chaps spoke on camera aka we cannot speak to the press or on camera to people if it is to be broadcast. I thought that had to be handled by NR media team?
Totally agree he is such a jobs worth just let them get on with it god I'd hate to live next door to him I like I'm trying to be responsible there a set av pillocks
@@Jambo-u2k from my understanding from past videos the public access path takes a 90 deg turn, into the area they walked half way into the video, immediately before the padlocked gate?
There does seem to be a legitimate question about why BTP have become engaged in this matter. Unfortunately their website does not fully clarify whether they can be contacted about a Civil Matter but as they omit this from the list of things they do, perhaps that is sufficient to signify that they can't. Certainly the Police Scotland website does make it clear that they can't, as does the website for Police England & Wales. The only exception in those cases seems to be if violence is threatened or actually happening. As, seemingly, BTP would not normally be involved in dealing with Boundary disputes, why would they employ lawyers with such specialist training, based on whose advice the BTP officer confidently asserts that the couple do not own the land as they claim. But, in any event, NR earlier seemed to claim that they owned the land which the 'driveway' is on but have since retracted that claim. Having been wrong once, surely, casts doubt on their assertions now. Whilst, the couple seem to be understandably robust in their assertions that they own the land and are refusing to consent to NR coming on to that land, I don't think a reasonable person would conclude that their actions rise to the level of a threat of violence. There are several options for NR to enter onto land they do not own, such as rights of way or access agreements included when they sold off land, and the general power to come onto any land, presumably to deal with emergancies such as a rail crash, collapsed embankments and fallen tress, or to prevent such events. However, they are not relying on those rights, their claim is to own the land. In which case, why have they not gone to court to claim the land back once their request (which I presume they made) to return the land to their control was denied. All the advice online from respected organizations regarding boundary disputes is a) discuss politely with party concerned b) try mediation, c) consult solicitor and if necessary go to court. None suggest direct action to reoccupy the land and in some cases say specifically that such action could leave you open to a case against you. Until this is legally resolved one way or another this dispute is likely to run and run. The couple have clearly said on camera that they are happy for the dispute to be resolved in this way. What have NR got against such action, however sound their legal advisors opinions might be, until the matter is settled in court they remain that, opinions, as would any advice the couple might receive from any lawyers employed by them, even if they are more experienced in dealing with such issues than those employed by NR and BTP. As NR are claiming to own the land to the right of the driveway, why are they not trying to just open up the fence to the right of the gate, which fence they would also no doubt claim to own, to access their land without going onto the land which they agree the couple own. Their failure to do this suggests they know they don't own this land either.
@@Carlos-im3hnAm I missing something, whilst I had not seen any information along the lines of your comments before I made my comments, it is not clear from what you say that there has been a ruling as to who owns the land. From what I have seen the NR claim to enter onto the couples land is that they own the adjoining land, not that they have been granted right of access. I suppose all this exchange proves is that people like me should refrain from making comments on matters which they are not competent to judge. However, I still think it is reasonable to hold the view that all of the issues are best resolved in court. The catalyst for me starting to make comments was the appearance that NR were trying to bully the couple into submission and making improper use of BTP in the process, rather than use the more appropriate legal route. I would reiterate my earlier comment, again from limited knowledge, if NR do in fact own the adjoining land as claimed, why not resolve the matter by opening up a direct access to the right of the track to avoid going onto land which they seem to acknowledge is owned by the couple. One final thought, if the ruling that NR have statutory right of access was gained on the basis that NR own the adjoining land, would the ruling still be valid if they were wrong to have claimed that?
The viewer is in the dark with all of this over the last few vids - both of you are talking over one another which doesn’t help - little wonder that observer is as confused as anybody else including the legal jargon NOW A SUGGESTION -make a film showing us the area in dispute and what Scotrail are claiming that they own . As you progress with the vid - show us on the map the complete area that is in dispute by pointing a finger at it and then the land - but with nobody there from Scotrail then we might better understand what this issue is . Consequently you might get somebody watching then who will know what the legal score is
Unless I've not being attention, maps are meaningless without the wording associated with them, ie rights of access by other parties, restrictive covenants etc
We are planning to do a video to explain the land ownership position here more clearly. Yes, we have received feedback from viewers that overtalking each other makes it hard for viewers to hear properly and understand the issues. We take that feedback and will try and not do it!
@LizAltnabreac-u8h sorry to press you on this, but have you published/ can you share the wording of your title deeds that relate to the plans / drawings please?
Heard a lot about this Altnabreac saga, it's not quite as it's portrayed in this video, Network Rail have the right to access the station and so do passengers, this idea of claiming ownership of the path and station platform is a non starter and for what purpose do you hope gain from it ? You vould just as easily live with it and got on with your life.
I have watched all the videos and it is absolute piffle and nonsensical the faff that is going on here. Support the station, your obstructing in nearly every video. Its a farce. You clearly had enough money to buy the house and knew about access etc so why cause all this fuss. Let the guys do their job and get the station open. Every video , out comes the title of the land. There was access agreed, you do not and will never own the railway or railway property your just obstructing.
@@ALTNABREACbut surely your saying on this video about the station numbers going up since you moved in and that yoy use scotrail on a regular basis so isnt this improving the access for you , your in the middle of nowhere its not london paddington , 0.76 passangers a day , there not building a motorway to the station just a small path
@@ALTNABREAC thats a myth, i work very hard to afford my horse you presumptuous ass. You stated yourself that the previous owner had an arrangement, which you would expect would carry on, but oh no! You have to obstruct then beg other people for money. You are causing so much disruption to passengers and other staff members. I hope Network Rail do take it further very soon and get a compulsory purchase order
Can you guys not leverage your position to make an offer to Network Rail? It's going to be more costly to them to keep going on like this when they clearly don't own the land. Also why can't they just move the station and build a new one? And, them accepting your new agreement would be an admission of lack of ownership.
I was thinking that as well. Network rail I am almost certain will own the track considering train still run on it to this day and they are liable for repairs. So they can surley run as many trains as they like along the line.
They need to own the land to do it! They don't own the station or adjoining land where they've unlawfully constructed the pathway. We own it and they need our permission...
@@LizAltnabreac-u8hwhen Network Rail sold the land didn’t they realise they also needed access to the station to maintain it? Short sightedness on their part.
The midgies are evil 😂. This shows you being very polite to these people who have attended the property. I don't much about your situation but from what I can gather. BR sold the house and made a mistake by not putting down on paper that there should be a right of way to the station. Thats there mistake if I am correct i dont know to much about the Land up there with you but I come from as small village on the west coast and grew up on a small holding of crofts. So I know a little about crofts. I would be looking for compensation from Network rail with to regards to Damage caused while the workmen were there. I do hope you can get somewhere with this. I believe that not only have had damage to property but also mental health. I will continue to support and keep a watch on your Channel to see how this goes. I hope you have great day best wishes. 😊
Yup big companies behave like this daily, we had building work opposite us and the used a roller that was ' not to be used within a set distance of housing' due to its production of load low frequency (basically for motorway work) they used this because it was "faster" due to compacted concrete and rock (the easy option) they got a desist notice after 3 days delayed by their lawyers and guess what, the work was done. Same when laying concrete ( started using a XL concrete vibrator at midnight till after 3 am due to bad planning again nothing done as they had finished
Get it in writing any damage caused to your property would need compensating.. And and damage cause will be renovated to its original state.. Problem Solved.. 👍
There's a huge difference from having ramblers walk through a pathway, the network wants to set up access for vehicles and machinery. Damage is the least of the problems, it's privacy issues etc. And if you give a corporation an inch, they will absolutely take a mile. And giving access is not just a one off, it will mean the network can access anytime they want.
Why don't you sit down with your solicitor and set up a WAYLEAVES agreement with Network Rail and let them get on with what they need to do (with documented conditions) and receive an annual payment for it? Are you getting some sort of buzz from this? If not sooner or later it will have a massive impact on your health. Second question: what did you anticipate when you bought the house?
That is exactly what needs to be in place, a wayleave. We have offered to grant one to Network Rail but they are trying to use our land without one which is unlawful. Our priority right now is stopping them coming back onto our land and we hope to seek recourse at the civil court. We do not get a 'buzz' out of this. We are passionate about the truth and sharing videos to the public to be transparent about what is REALLY happening at Altnabreac and why the station is still closed. Network Rail and Scotrail are keeping the truth from the public in their one-sided news reports using mainstream news. We want to ensure the public are presented with our side and the FULL FACTS.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h Well said Liz. I wonder what the negative people on here would do if the same thing happened to them. Keep positive Liz and Ian and get the legal team in ASAP to sort it all out.
Would asking NR £100k for 3 months access be a possible resolution? Or does that open other problems later? If NR require access later u charge them £1000 per day?
at 18.41 you can see a sign at the end off the platform saying "private property keep out" are you saying you own a working platform ? many thanks Harry
Yes, we do own the land that was used as the station platform. Network Rail require our permission to use it just like they would need your permission to use you garden if you have one. Network Rail do not own it. Indeed, Network Rail do not own all stations in the UK contrary to popular belief.
Can I ask a simple question, how did Sutherland and Caithness Railway, the Highland Railway, LMSR, British Rail, and now Network Rail access the station before you bought the property ? Many thanks Harry
We plan to cover the conveyancing history into Station House and the railway line passing through Altnabreac soon hopefully. This should answer your question. Thanks for commenting.
would it not be simpler to let Network rail complete there works then, let the station open, and deal with continued access through a legal route, I only recently started watching and appreciate your position, but it could be argued in court you are being obstructive. I appreciate how difficult it must be to fight a large wealthy corporation, would it not even be worth it to even do a limited "gofundme", to allow you get get a legal opinion from a KC?
No it wouldn't be better to let Network Rail do the works first, because they would try and make a claim to a 'Right'. We have made a GoFundMe which is pinned to the top of comments. Thanks for your comment
Hello, thank you for your comment. We have set up a Go Fund me account to help us deal with this through the lawful channels of the civil court. Our link is pinned at the top of this video.
If they play this right they could get a good deal out of this for instance a large sum of money each year and free rail tickets for life etc. that company is worth millions dont forget maybe house insurance paid by them incase of building and land damage.
If you are acting as an observer, you observe, the moment you talk, you are no longer acting as an observer, also an observer must not be Paid by either party, as you are obligated to the party that pays you.
With any land dispute it is never easy to just to say OK to workman entering private property, and even worse when there is public right of way. We also have to bear in mind the property owners are dealing with Scottish law, not England and Wales law. Personally, I would not let any workman on to the land unless they can back their visit with order from the court, just in case they believe they now have an implied right of access !
In Australia they are doing this by so called native title and are taking away huge amounts of farmland and mining when we voted NO! Even the aboriginal ppl hate what’s happening
If a member of public gets injured by tripping over on that path then who would be liable if they took action? This is one of many reasons why this access and ownership dispute needs to be legally bound and resolved
@@neil4uk175 i didn’t mean that. What I meant was it needs to be legally binding on who owns what. If a passenger fell over or tripped over then who is liable? Someone has to have the rights of ownership
I totally understand the guys position That network rail are chancing their arm just to keep pushing and annoy the owners of the property If the network rail had asked in a polite manner instead of going in guns blazing thugs might have turned out differently.
A solicitors letter should stop this. It’s clearly a legal matter. Best handed over to a solicitor. It looks like a clear case so you will get your costs back.
I think you are correct, but a solicitor shouldn't be necessary. NR should just pay the couple for the privilege of accessing their land.I was accused of driving at 90mph and decided to represent myself due to the fact a soliciter would have cost £2000-£3000. If found guilty 5-6 points + £500. I try to negotiate with the procurator fiscal and would have been willing to accept a reduced speed with 3 points. Unfortunately for the PF he refused to talk to me and pursued the case and had had to abandon the case in court due to me cross examining both traffic policemen and exposing their lies in their written statements. People in certain positions of authority won't listen or show any respect for the small man. Had I had a solicitor my case would have been negotiated and I would have got a estimated £100 fine and 3 points and no court appearances.
A traffic stop is a matter of facts, this is a matter of law. This is a situation where there are complicated land access rights being claimed by both parties. One of these parties is trying to deny said right. The denial comes from the landowner who is the position of power. In my opinion they should get an injunction to get a proper judgement on the matter. An injunction cost around £240 and can be done with or without a solicitor. But I would recommend a solicitor.
Where was the original access route to the station when it was operational and did it cross your land, if so, was that sold off to yourselves as part of your property, when the station was closed. Persons who fail to fully identify and explain their reasons for being there when requesting access to your property should be sent packing until they do so. As it would appear that Network Rail intend re-opening the station why is there only access to it across your private property, unless it was always the case and were there other access route available.
Put up a removal of implied right access sign. Attach a fee schedule for those breaking your terms. Then sue the individuals in their private capacity. If they are seeking consent, they know they don't have authority
You mention that there is a public right of access, that being the case Network Rail have this right. You should be careful otherwise may may be liable to Network Rail standing and delay costs.
I'm so confused now I think I'll give up trying to understand it all.... The description of this video seems to say it's an old video. I've been thinking it was filmed today! So that's why there's no white rock put down to the right hand side after the public access through the gate? And at the end you seem to be INVITING them to use your drive and to come over the cattle grid as "It's solid and can't be damaged" ??? So now I just haven't a clue at all what the whole thing is about! Sorry I'm probably just old and thick! Whatever happens I hope it works out well for all concerned.
It's probably the most confused youtube channel I've ever encountered as well. What the actual dispute is, I have no idea, they just keep saying that NR are trying to take their land, but up to now they appear to have provided no specific details at all. Can't believe they have set up a go fund me page based on the miniscule details and content so far, absolutely bizarre
I get the distinct impression that Liz and Ian would happily allow NR and their contractors to use their driveway to access the property if NR would reach an agreement similar to what NR had with the previous owners, however NR do not want to agree to the conditions so have resorted to using threats of arrest and intimidation from BTP to ride roughshod over Liz and Ian’s rights as the landowners. All it would take to resolve this is NR to be reasonable and come to an access agreement that would allow the contractors to have reasonable access across the land to do the necessary work and upgrades needed to reopen the station but NR donor seem to be willing to reach an amicable compromise and instead are abusing the influence they have with BTP to try bullying Liz and Ian into giving up their rights.
@@cuddlybear_uk i don't normally post here anymore, but as you've asked: There is a FOI request that clearly shows NR never had any such agreement with the previous occupants. I have never seen any evidence of NR staff being threatening or intimidating, quite the opposite. I have never seen any evidence of BTP being anything other than professional, and have certainly never seen any evidence of them being threatening or intimidating. The only evidence of rudeness and obstruction that I've seen has been by Ian and Liz. Have a good evening.
I think you might have misunderstood the law in Scotland. You don't have the right to access everywhere. There are specific laws under the 2003 Land Reform Act which exclude areas from the universal right of access. Examples are houses, gardens and non-residential buildings and associated land, land in which crops are growing, sports or playing fields (where exercising access rights would interfere with their use), airfields, railways, quarries, and visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry.
These workers met with BTP a few minutes after they left in this video and made the complaint ☹
We appreciate your support in whichever way it comes and are glad you are here for this journey. Ian & Liz
www.gofundme.com/f/588854-altnabreac-cover-up
It would be beneficial for all, if you could timestamp these videos in the description, or title (even just part 1, 2 etc...) as this looks like an earlier video as one video shows the path having already being tarmacked?
@@vandammesque Thanks yes, I just put in description that it just before the BTP came. I'm actually going to do a playlist and put it in chronological order.
Could u please not talk over each other ,cos i find it annoying .
Do the title deeds not include sections detailed with rights of way and rights of access, footpaths etc?
@@jjfm271well don’t watch it then!! or lower your volume on your computer
please stop talking over each other.most annoying
Ffs arguments for the sake of arguments. IF YOU BELIEVE you are correct in your position, then baricade vehicle access NOT pedestrian access and force them to take you to court for obstruction of access. You dont need a go fund me, etc, as the court case will be brought against you... you can then have your day in court and have this matter finalised.
At this point, it is like some stupid petty dispute.....stop engaging with them and force a court case
Network Rail would probably just bulldoze the barricade, but i agree with you in getting Network Rail to take them to court to settle this dispute. But i think while the dispute is ongoing no work should be carried out while the land is still in contention.
@@Carlos-im3hn what crime were they charged with?
Let’s spell it out -
Network rail have responsibility to maintain the walk through to the station- as such they have every right to access it to carry out their lawful responsibility.
If someone slips and breaks their ankle - who should they sue - you, or network rail?
I’m surmising that your answer would be network rail? Or are you going to take responsibility?
The poor guy that was with Ian that just wanted to show Ian where they need to go but had to bite his tongue and listen to all that for half an hour 😂
Just a question if there is a public right of way ,why have you locked the gate which is part of the public right of way.
Telling he hasn't replied to this
@@beeftec5862 That doesnt mean anything, do you reply to everysingle thing and do you notice everysingle comment. BE an adult. Guy/girl asked a question that was not answered and you used that opportunity to feed your vamperic needs. Guilt needs evidence do you have that?
If in Scotland I would suggest there is no right of way. They are very limited. Access for utilities are usually by wayleaves. Rights of way tend to be between village and church. They are highly unusual.
It appears all you want to do is argue. If you have an issue then the courts are the where you need to go.
@@paralogregt no, it's where they need to go.. they are the ones who want to do something without permission
@@Carlos-im3hn it ain't legal if it's in dispute whether it's legal. That's what in dispute means. If it was as simple as access, why are NR bothering to falsely make claims about ownership?
@@Carlos-im3hn I don't know what exactly is specified in the title or the public access, but building stuff is not mere access. According to other comments here they want to build a building
@@Carlos-im3hn by the way, legal disputes give rise to legal proceedings... You might find other definitions, but that is a common definition
@@paralogregt they cannot afford to, hence why they are begging on a go fund me .
Just a note, the pubic footpath needs to be keep unrestricted ( ie no locked gates).
This was a reasonably good interaction with the workers.
good thing the foot path gate wasnt locked then
@@coolstorybrooooo7643 Network rail lawyers will use any legal excuse to persue their claim to the driveway.
I don’t think you people have grasped the Caithness way of life, a favour for a favour and all that, if you were more accommodating to the maintenance team I am sure they would do “additional” maintenance that would benefit you also, on a side note, Altnabreac is pronounced
“Alt-na-brek”, not “Alt-na-break”
This is about Network Trying to steal our land, we've noticed an uptick in discrimination and racism, which makes me wonder if you would be supporting us if we were native Scottish? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have supported the atrocities of the Highland clearances, but happy to turn a blind eye when it's us. Also, we are the ONLY ones that have cared enough about Alt-na-brek and the landfill with tyres, fridges, freezers and birds dropping dead out from the tree's to do anything about it, which is an utter disgrace that you have nothing to say about 'your own country'.
Absolute nonsense, no suggestion of racism or discrimination at all, it seems to be the usual line that comes out when a common sense suggestion is made, the use of a driveway is way different than us being driven off our land for sheep, in Caithness we try our best to avoid confrontation and always look for a mutually beneficial solution to problems, as I said, if they used your drive, I am sure they would repair and maintain it going forward which would be to your advantage. The railway has only been there for around 150 years, yet there has only been a problem for the last three, I wonder what changed? My feeling is your struggle has mercenary intent. You will lose any local support you may have.
@@johnbremner1453 I think you need to check all the facts before you make your posts, as Network Rail and the BTP have come along and said "We do not own our driveway", We will be making a video of Network Rails solicitor claiming to own our driveway in due course, which will put comments like yours to shame. Unless you are just claiming ignorance? if so get all the facts first. One rule for you and yours and another for everyone else!
@@johnbremner1453 'in Caithness we try our best to avoid confrontation and always look for a mutually beneficial solution to problems, as I said, if they used your drive, I am sure they would repair and maintain it going forward which would be to your advantage.' What do you think we were trying to do in this video? The straightforward solution to the problem is that Network Rail admit they do not own our driveway and admit they do need our permission and when the appropriate legal agreement is set up, they can have access. SIMPLE. It is Network Rail being difficult by falsely claiming to own land they do not!
@@ALTNABREAC these films of yours popped up on my UA-cam feed last night when I was looking for more interesting local content films to pass an evening. I did hear in the local grapevine in the past about some newcomers having an issue, so I thought I would watch one or two to see what it is all about. My take on it is that you are both confrontational and have elevated the problems you have by your attitude. You certainly both come across as confrontational in the videos and are also confrontational in your replies to my comments. Maybe I am ignorant to the entire picture as to what is going on, but to be honest I do not think I could sit through more than two videos of a couple of “Karen’s” making life difficult for themselves. If you have confidence in the solicitor who closed the sale of your property, you have nothing to worry about and let the legal system do its work. Your suggestions of racism and discrimination are also for the birds. Unlike some others around, I consider myself to be British and see no difference between anyone from the four nations, strangely I have relatives who live in each.
As I said, my feeling is that your grievance is mercenary and your course will change upon some form of reward. I may do a bit more research to see if you have a “Go Fund Me” page. These seem to be fashionable these days for a quick pound.
At this point it just feels like your making a rod for your own back and to make youtube videos , if your really this pissed , go to court and let a judge / sherrif decide the outcome
And isnt the side gate the public right of way ? - if so why have you got a padlock on it
It is a much slower process than you seem to believe.
@@Kelley-v7v its been going on for 3 years as stated in an earlier video ,
Court costs money…
They’ve been trying to deal with it for ages alone and now they’re asking for contributions towards the costs - I haven’t yet but will at some point, David needs new sling to deal with Goliath ;)
The guy asked multiple times to just look. You said ok then rant about stuff he doesn't know about! You want a confrontation end of discussion
Iv never seen such a guy who's a pain in the arse let them get on with it why be such a tosser
He's just someone who feels big with a camera like the majority of today's society can't say anything as he will do you with the camera footage feel sorry for today's employees no wonder they don't wanna do the jobs as got clowns like this filming em every 5 minutes
That's because NR cannot give the excuse they did not know! The workers wanted to 'just look' but they needed to know that what they looking at was NOT owned by NR and so they needed our permission. All the information given to the workers is already known by the head solicitor for NR who is giving false information to the workers that NR own our driveway and other land here. That solicitor is hiding away in his office....We do not want a confrontation, we want things done lawfully and the only way to do that is through COMMUNICATION. However, rather than communicating with us and dealing with things lawfully, NR sent their personal security guards BTP to us right after to try and get us arrested so they could get on land UNLAWFULLY. Is that the kind of behaviour you support from public workers and BTP....
And you all in this thread are just clasping at straws. You don't know these people. And the fact this shit happens all the time with big corporations. So why don't you duffers jog on and do some research
I think they just wanted to get their point across first ,
For an observer he appears to have a lot to say.
Did we watch the same video. There were only 2 people talking here.
You say its a public walkway but then the gate is locked .
At the end of the day its they are there to do a job and asked a simple question . Yet you barrage them for half an hour wasting time with information that has nothing to do with them .
Are there easements in place before you bought the property? If there was then they continue, unless both parties have agreed legally otherwise?
They seem rather clueless to me
Transport and Work Act 1992 gives them access anyway, ownership or not. Not sure what the big problem is, they just want to maintain the railway and station. It’s an active station and you chose to live there
Just one question - What are you going to do with the "Go fund me" money if the work goes ahead (And as we all know it almost certainly will) and you don't get a solicitor? As yet I have not heard any mention of you getting a solicitor to fight your corner so please answer the question - Will you refund it or just keep it?
Hello, thank you for your comment. We hope to use the donations to pursue recourse at the civil court to resolve this dispute lawfully and surveyor costs etc. We will ensure that we document exactly what the donations will be used for and really appreciate the support of those who can see what Network Rail is trying to do to us.
A very well known UA-camr did a similar thing a few years ago and set up a funding page so that he could take legal action against the BBC...he raised many thousands of pounds I seem to remember which I don't believe was used for legal fees when he ended up in court accused of harassment and staking (I think it was) and was subsequently jailed...I seem to remember that he represented himself...you probably know who I mean...I'm sure his name would rind a "bell"!
@@Hubster65 Yes i also followed the Bellfield case. He also represented himself in the case which i thought was stupid, but did he do that because know one would represent him ?
@@awolwakefieldyorkshire quite possibly, or, was the whole thing a scam from start to finish, by which I mean was there actually a trial.
@@Hubster65 Yes he's still in prison
I thought Eastenders was a dire soap opera but this is something else!
We had a footpath from the end of our drive to adjoining land. It was ONLY a footpath but various local organisations insisted it was a bridle way, which it legally was not. We had people on motorbikes and local horse clubs destroying our fences and gates to gain illegal access. We even had cars parking on our GARDEN to then walk along the path. I was threatened with violence on more than one occasion, we had a wooden gate destroyed twice with replacements at our expense.
We even put a style in place at our expense which was subsequently destroyed. All this on a brand new house, the stress was immense at the time. The local paper had a large article about it on their front page implying that we were doing thing’s illegally. They did eventually print a retraction, one paragraph buried near the end of the paper !
I can truly sympathise with this couple, the number of people and misinformation we had to contend with was huge. We sorted it all out then moved 18 months later.
Thank you for sharing your experience and I am sorry you had to go through it. We really appreciate your supportive comment. ❤
A stile not a style 😂
Why did you buy the property in the first place ? this should have been explained to you during your purchase searches by your solicitor .
That was not a bridleway it was a byway open to all traffic and you tried and failed to get it overturned then moved out unless I’m mistaking your case for another very similar
To stop the hassle just let them do the work, and insist that any works that are carried out do not damage your property,and if they do they must reinstate simple!
What about the actual Title deeds? Those will show easements and talk about access too... Boundaries can mean almost nothing when rights of access and for infrastructure... How many times do you need to be told when it comes to that... You must have lived in a town all your lives. If you get hit with a DCO then you can be much worse off... You are sadly digging a hole and making it worse. Rights of access doesn't need them to own it...
Network rail DO NOT NEED YOUR PERMISSION.... The station has been there before you were and whatever access has been in place for over a period of 20 years, even if it is before you owned it it becomes a permissive easement and you cannot fight it...
YOU cannot land lock the station and they really do NOT need permission as they have a right to access part of the national infrastructure... The more I watch the more you have a problem that is not going to end the way you want or think it should end.
The title deeds and the map are clear. The boundary is in the middle of the road of the extension of the access road going from the cattle grid to the station. They onlyhave mutal ownership of that road and network rail and the public have a right of access to it. They do own their garden fully but not the road part.
@@shanraw1 So the path or access which goes to the station can be accessed by NR with a vehicle for any work they may need to do. The cut through they have installed at 90 degrees to the public access is part of their right to maintain, renew, repair or replace whatever is on the NR station. We have access to the farm land opposite our house to do the same with our sewage system and if we get blocked or have access refused to get onto the land with equipment needed to do that work then the farm would be in breach and could be prosecuted. That never usually happens because if you live in the countryside you know how these things work. If you come from the town, its a whole new world and boundaries mean different things in many ways when access is needed for utilities, rights of public access etc..
@@Carlos-im3hn Watch the Gone in 60 seconds video titled.. @NetworkRail PROPERTY TITLE: CTH7726 STATION COTTAGE, ALTNABREAC, HALKIRK KW126UR @ALTNABREAC
Please read Burdens and the second one as it is quite clear it is in regards to the railways and there property on that site.
The area in blue (their driveway) has both pedestrian and vehicular access for NR. Also there is 0.34 acres of land within the pink area owned by the rail company. They are 100% in the wrong sadly...
I feel kind of caught up on the situation but when I went looking at older news media there is this older story about you getting arressted for blocking the tracks, do you think you could tell us why that happened as I've never seen anyone explain why you were on the track, I guess if its unrelated to the present situation it doesn't matter but I'd think it probably is related and am surprised its never came up apart from you mentioning the baille conditions in this vid.
(sorry if it has been explained and I missed it, I have watched all the vids but I don't recall it beign mentioned.)
NR brought criminal charges against us which we are not allowed to talk about, we haven't been found guilty of anything.
@@ALTNABREAC why are you not allowed to talk about it? This reads like a half truth, when you say you haven't been found guilty of anything, and what you're really (not, but should be) saying is that charges are still pending and that it hasn't come to trial yet.
Surely Network Rail have used that path for more than 20 years?
It's not about access, it's about ownership
@@ALTNABREAC I’ve not seen anything that says they own it… just that they have a right to use it and there is a duty to make sure it’s safe whilst they do so. If you’re not going to upgrade it to a level that they deem safe, then the onus is on them to do it. But you’re stopping them? Nice to see the cause of the dispute that meant I couldn’t visit ABC when I had a ticket last month.
@@ALTNABREAC ITS NOT ABOUT OWNERSHIP!!! IT IS ABOUT ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY..
@user-ed4jf1eu5p they surextalk about ownership of their land a lot. Even considering damage to their land & Trespass. I see it like this. NR disputed their ownership of land. Their fear is that NR could just stomp over all the areas they believe to be theirs. So the dispute could just keep going on and on.
@@Carlos-im3hnyeah that last sentence might be an idea tbf - let them do what they want, damage and build etc and then once they win in court, claim compensation and any damage reverted etc
They’re stressing themselves out and can’t actually stop anything in the moment anyway or the police arrest
Although I’m a stubborn c**t and wouldn’t but logically it makes sense haha
At 9:19, he mentioned "bail conditions", sounds to me that there is already a legal case ongoing. It would be interesting to know what it was and what the bailmconditions are.
I think a google search brings up a case last year where a court instructed them to stop threatening and obstucting NR
@@Carlos-im3hn thank you for the information.
Oh my gawd it’s Alex Bellfield all over again - gotta stop them grifters
If that gate is providing public right of way access to the station why are you locking it? You really need to employ a Chartered Land Surveyor to plot out your boundaries in those areas of dispute. In the mean time, if you're convinced you own the land and drive way access then put hydraulic bollards in the road that you can lift up as and when needed then no one can gain access without your permission. Get your solicitor to write to them formerly and refuse permission for them to access your land, build or construct anything on your land period.
The foot traffic gate remains for the public, just on the leftside looking out.
@@samwise5493 Yes but why do you have a padlock on it if it is a public right of way?
The lock is not normally on the gate.
@@ALTNABREAC why if it is a public right of way, surely you have no right to lock the gate or stop public acccess
No works should be carried out till the disputed ownership of land is settled
Errr... you purchased a property next to a railway station...of course NR needs access! I don't think that NR have dealt with this situation very well..but not sure wht this can't be settled amicably!
Exactly- if it is a public path to the station- one would think that network rail have every right to access in order to carry out its lawful responsibility. These pair need to grow up. As I’ve said before- the f someone injured themselves on ‘their driveway’ are they going to foot the bill - I highly doubt it.
I thought that small side gate was a public access footpath to the platform, isn't that what you said. So why was that small side gate padlocked if that's the case? Are you locking public footpath gates?
I don't get it.
It was just to stop NR on this occasion, public come here all the time with no issue whatsoever
@@ALTNABREAC oh I see, thanks for the explanation. Goodluck with your case
According to the RoS map, there is a blue strip through the middle of the property, indicating a burden/right of way.
Is that correct?
This issue is covered on the previous video.
My understanding is that this is not where NR are attempting to gain access and neither are they asserting those rights whatever they might be. In any event the blue strip does not extend to what appears to be the western boundary.
I haven’t bothered watching the vlog, i thought the couple were going to upload their land registry plan and documents. As others have noted, It is clear from historical photographs and videos that the boundary fences/hedges have been modified and /or removed principally to the platform side of the house. The question is did these alterations reflect changes made to revisions on the land registry plan or just undertaken on site by this couple or the previous owners. Were these alterations to the boundaries agreed with the Railtrack (now Network Rail) or British Rail depending on when they were carried out or have previous owners claimed the land under adverse possession rules which differ for railway land and Scottish law. Have the licensed conveyancers or more likely solicitors acted honourably or made an error in the purchase. I suspect not or this a couple would of taken that up with them soon after purchase, particularly as she is an ex police officer. As many others have said there is potentially way more to this than the one sided view presented here and although taking a legal route should always be the last resort, it appears they passed that point sometime ago. Interesting that old photos show a five bar gate, presumably for vehicular access on the old? boundary fence line that used to run parallel to the track/platform on the line of the NW face of their house. Often the house wall facing the track is set as the boundary line, sometimes with a narrow ransom strip or sometimes just with a legal right to access that elevation/roof for maintenance purposes, presumably when the old station/master house was parcelled off and sold by British Rail?
Seem like nice people and does appear there may be ground for dispute re the land but there are a couple of red flags with behaviour: 1) why arrested for trespassing on the railway 2) if there is a public right of access, why was the gate locked! They wouldn’t need permission to access the footpath…
Hello, thank you for your comment. In answer to your 'red flags' - We have not been found guilty of anything. There is a public right of pedestrian only access to the station via the side gate. It is kept unlocked but the lock was put on that day to prevent NR and BTP from just walking onto our land as NR were not there in the capacity of members of the public but professional capacity. They therefore did not have a legal right to use it.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h ooh, you're wrong there. The "public right of way" is expansive rather than restrictive. A person who is traversing a public right of way for business purposes, eg. a person on their commute to work, is still a member of the public. You have no right to restrict access to a public right of way and you are not the arbiter of whose business is permitted that right. It's simply not YOUR business. Sorry.
Just because you’re arrested doesn’t mean anything especially when the opponent has a private police force happy to abuse the law and intimidate people
@@simonh Have you watched the videos? Network Rail piled onto our private driveway in diggers, vehicles and an excavator! This is nothing to do with the public right of access! The public right of access does not allow vehicular access anyway.
Furthermore, as regards the public right of way, like the Land Reform access rights, public access rights must be used responsibly and the private land owner can refuse access to those who are acting in threatening, intimidating, and harassing conduct towards the owner of the land. These rights are not carte blanche!
This is what NR is doing to us - harassing us and we have every right to prevent them from coming onto to our land. That is the law. Please research the law properly and get all facts before providing your ill-informed opinion. It is a shame you're in support of the bully boy companies.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h this is bait and switch. The point I made stands. You cannot restrict access to a public right of way, period. How someone acts while accessing the right of way may be subject to sanction, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you can restrict access to a public right of way. You can't. Don't do it.
It is great to see exactly what this story is about. I hope this resolves peacefully and without too much added stress!!!
So, ... They want to build a walking path to the station? It looks like they've marked it out... What is the dispute, you want the path somewhere else, or you don't want it at all? Or what?
It’s a confusing situation and nobody seems to know what’s going on but NR mentioned wanting to build a building of some kind previously so it’s more than just a path/road
I think the path has already been built - confusing isn't it?!
@@thoughtfulalbatros9683 NR want to replace the dilapidated station shelter with a better building for passengers before re-opening the station according to various media sources available online with a quick search.
So what are they asking for money for then - don’t they have jobs?
@@clareowen2047 it’ll probably cost them 20-30k+ to take NR to court - have you got that lying around?
Crowd funding is an invaluable tool when your opponent has vast resources you don’t
I would have told just Ian for now to piss off and come back with identification I wouldn't let anyone on my land without knowing exactly who they are.
If there is right of access then you should not have too.
@@wellerjamthere is no right of access I believe
I agree no 🆔 just some random bloke being elusive tell Just IAN to do one just a bystander my arse!
Would it not just be far far easier to let them on the land, do the job they need for the railway and it'll be over. This is all a bit silly really. Just let them do the job and it's over.
No we won't "just let them steal our land", give them yours!
@@ALTNABREAC exactly, I'd imagine access for the machinery would be different situation if NR didn't claim land ownership, this hand written map they have sounds sketchy (pun intended)!
Sounds like a paid troll for network rail.
@@leviandronicous4193 I'm really really not, perhaps I've misunderstood the entire thing. Seems to me the Rail workers just need to do some mainetnance to keep the system running.
@@ALTNABREAC What land? It's a railway track, what are they going to do with it? Build a hotel? It's just a nonsense for You Tube clicks - for which I've fallen for. :)
Surely u knew this b4 u bought the property? If not, why not?
And u still chose to go ahead.
Knowing the potential difficulties.
In my opinion, by entering in to conversation with them you may unintentionally give them certain rights. Be very careful what you say and i agree with another supporter who stated that the first guy said he was just an observer.
Hello i am a former BR/RT/NR former AMI/MOM and former signalman recently retired.
Just to let you know NR staff aren't allowed to speak on camera if it is to be broadcast.
Its a disciplinary offence, Only the NR media team are allowed to speak to the media or if like yourself you are broadcasting your film.
You can film them working but they genuinely cannot talk to you if that film is to be broadcast.
Might i suggest you get your conveyancing solicitor to check with NR the access agreement.
As we have a number of access points owned by private individuals but the railway retained the right of access.
It really upset one man but his conveyancing solicitor had missed it.
I hope me pointing out that NR staff are not allowed to talk to anyone if the film is to broadcast is helpful
I would ask the NR media team down.
I hope this matter is settled amicably
A court order is required to stop this harassment.
They will obtain one but really don’t need to as they have statutory right of access .
@firkin1024 is that correct? If so game over
That or an alsatian 🤣🤣🤣
They do not need one, they physically cannot stop right of access. They are just being obstructive, in this video , he blatantly says, there was a right of access agreement.
To be honest you held be accountable for the lost revenue and time wasting you have caused just to people that are trying to do their job.
Scotland is a wonderful place, please stop spoiling it
@@firkin1024 No there's not, what a load of rubbish. RUKF by any chance?
I have not watched all the videos, nor do I intend to as they are akin to the proverbial bat shit. This seems to be a very simple property ownership issue, to be resolved through the legal system and have no entertainment value whatsoever.
So don't watch it then fool
Other than grifting money from unsuspecting silly people
I suppose you have to keep yourself busy somehow 👍
What do you mean?
@@ALTNABREACHe thinks he's being clever. Don't feed the T.Rolls.
I’m on your side 100% it’s your land and they are taking the piss big time but you don’t have to explain the situation every time to every person and repeat the same stuff over and over
The guy just wanted a quick look at the path to the station
All that today was unnecessary
Your solicitor is dealing with it
Your saying the same stuff in every video and I agree with what your saying and understand the difficulty and emotion of the situation but
repeating the same stuff over and over is getting frustrating
Repeating it over and over again to different people who need telling.
@@peteroderick104 they have been told-enough already
I'm a human being which makes me qualified to make that decision. Bloody hell, just let them make their pathway. This is extremely petty.
Give them your land then
It's not petty. It's a principle. The old saying "give them an inch and they will take a mile" comes to mind. Once a right has been established it becomes difficult to undo and this can affect future use of the land. I have no connection to the Altnabreac family but I do have a desire to see all parties treated fairly according to Scottish law.
@@ALTNABREACSurely you’re not “giving them your land”….just access…which they can use from time to time…and I’m sure they would inform you in advance if and when they needed the access??
Lol, Canada has fallen. Can I build a path through your front room ?
@@pennywise146 You think a corporation would give advanced notice? If they give access without going through the courts, then the Network will use that access 24/7. This has to go through the courts.
We want to work with network rail, but……we want to get paid a daily / leasing fee by network rail!!! 🙄
I've been following this since it first popped up, and I've been competently on your side up to now. Today, I'm almost on the fence. This latest instalment has confused me a little, the overall tone throughout this video seems to show you on side and willing to grant access, right down to advising where vehicles and equipment could be left while works are carried out. The entire interaction seemed pretty amicable and cooperative. I can't see how that escalated into a compaint with BTP in attendance unless that cooperation was later revoked. This video has left me with some questions. 1. When you purchased the property I would assume its proximity to the Station and the public right of access was clearly defined which I assume included access to the station for maintainence purposes which you alluded to in your mention of a prior agreement with the previous owners so it would be no surprise access would be required at some point to carry out said maintenance? 2. You mention you had offered terms for a temporary access agreement with NR, obviously they were rejected but what were those terms, and why were they rejected? 3. You mention in the video about the previous "leasing" arrangement for access, did you ask that NR pay you for access to carry out this maintenance to the station? That's the undertonal impression this video has given. If that's the case I can almost understand NR playing hard ball though please correct me if that impression is incorrect. I completely agree that BTPs involvement and the damaging of tour property is unlawful it should have been dealt with in a civil court before any action was taken however I do feel this could have been managed in a different way. You say that you benefit from the station being there and tou support the reopening of it, I would imagin in the process of making improvements you could benefit from those too. A memorandum of understanding could have been drafted to grant temporary access to conduct the maintenance which could have worked in favour of both parties.
To put simple, we had this meeting with NR and we said we would grant them a 'Temporary access agreement' which would of cost them, but they decided to send BTP to threaten to arrest me on my own land. I don't see how you do not understand? Watch the playlist on my channel, its events in chronological order.
@@ALTNABREAC I have watched the playlist and I've followed this chronologically. And as I said I've been on your side all the way through, I've also donated on your "just giving" page. Though up until now it's been unclear why you refused access in the first place. I completely agree that BTP have acted outside of their legal scope. I don't agree with intimidation or harassment in any circumstance I think they should be held accountable for that. I feel that's a separate issue now. You have known maintenance needed to be carried out which you have obstructed, at first glance seemingly out of principle but now more accurately out of principle because they've refused to pay you for access. I don't blame you for trying, plenty of us could all do with a little extra cash but at that point you could have tried to negotiate something else that benefits you and your property upgrading the pedestrian access for example or rerouting it so it doesn't go right past your front door. Any number of things which I'm sure they would have been more amenable to. At the worst you could have conceded, understanding that the maintainence and upgrades to the Station are for the greater good and directly benefit you anyway. I would have backed you all the way on principle but the revelation this has been triggered by an attempt at financial gain just sours the milk slightly. NR are not claiming they own your property only that they should have right of access to conduct the maintainence needed at the station. You need to be a little more transparent. In my opinion asking people support financially for legal aid that you will likely use to force NR to pay you for access so you can gain financially is a little underhanded..
@StoneCircleExotics well said.. I had an idea money was involved 🥴
Much better temperament. Keep it up!
Having seen the title deeds on another video. The path marked in blue (Your driveway) has pedestrian AND vehicular access for NR (British Railway board from 1969) so they have every right to come onto the land. There is also 0.34 acres of land in the area marked in pink which they have a right to access and maintain too. They also have the right to build there in regards to the operation of their station too. NR are correct they do own 0.34 acres of land within your boundary and have every right for pedestrian and vehicular access in regards the operation of their business. It seems you are in breach and breaking the law. I have said several times that countryside boundaries are not set in stone like ones in town due to things like utilities, sewage and infrastructure which is in or on land which has to be accessed. You seem to have either deleted or ignored the posts and keep being the victim when sadly you are in the wrong.
I have said it before and will say it again. If you force then into getting a Development Consent Order you may lose more than you think and in this case it could be 0.34 acres and be forced to allow vehicular access on the land marked in blue at all times for ANY contractor needing access to the rail companies land. You should have stuck to living in a town if you wanted boundaries that are cut and dry..
Watch the Gone in 60 seconds video titled.. @NetworkRail PROPERTY TITLE: CTH7726 STATION COTTAGE, ALTNABREAC, HALKIRK KW126UR @ALTNABREAC
Please read Burdens and the second one as it is quite clear it is in regards to the railways and there property on that site.
Let them get on with it man.... It's been there longer than you've been alive.. Sort something out please
They can if they do it legally and get our permission. Let them come access and build on your land if you see no issues here.
Ian has a very clean uniform and wears a helmet. Looks like a NR office waller.
There is a right of way which they agree but like many landowners they have locked the gate and blocked the right of way. bad idea. I can see why BTP would turn up. Ownership of land does not mean there is no right of way.
The vehicular access is chained off. It is a different point as to whether it is a vehicular right of way. There is a denial that there is anything but a pedestrian right of way. the argument that the estate is "authorised vehicles only" is moot, there can easily be an established vehicular right of way despite the signs. As NR are routinely using it is a good sign that there is a vehicular right of way.
NR do not need permission to exercise access rights and vehicular rights of access. They are not going to buy the land.
Talk of an access arrangement with the previous occupier?
As much as I think the houses owners are perhaps being a little difficult, and that NR are being bullyish, this is a really interesting series. Thanks for sharing.
See my footpath tale in the comments. They are NOT being difficult. Other people and organisations do use bullying tactics and involve lots of people at their end to confuse you as to who exactly is dealing with things. Been there,got the medal !
Buying a house with land with a pathway for ramblers at the end of the garden, is one thing. A corporation wants to access private property/land with vehicles and machinery at any day or time. You have to make them go through the courts, you have to have the courts decide what days/time they can access, damage caused etc. If you give a corporation an inch, they will absolutely take a mile. Would you want to give access 24/7 to a corporation to access your land any time they want?
@@roberthardy2013 a station has been here for years with access. I think previous owners were more accommodating. Regardless of the law.
@@MadDog_Rules a ramblers path to a train platform. Feels more than a ramblers path has been in place.
I’m astonished that both NWR & QTS employees did not identify themselves, names and job titles.
When I worked with NWR Operations, it was mandatory to provide your name & job description, on request.
Jim I retired early 2 years ago as an MOM then it was mandatory to Indentify yourself if requested.
It was in the rulebook I'm sure.
@@stephenholmes1036
I retired after 38 years from Railway Signalling Operations in and around the Glasgow area, mostly. I do believe you are correct unless there’s been a rule change since 2017🤔
Jim, I don't know this case, But we always tried to have a good relationship with landowners.
Some subbies let is down badly blocking entries etc.
I'm not surprised planning didn't organise this properly and the legal team need to meet these people and sort this out.
I'm surprised our chaps spoke on camera aka we cannot speak to the press or on camera to people if it is to be broadcast.
I thought that had to be handled by NR media team?
Totally agree he is such a jobs worth just let them get on with it god I'd hate to live next door to him I like I'm trying to be responsible there a set av pillocks
forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us
Public right of way but the gate was padlocked !
The gate to the side is open to allow access the station but there is no vehicle access - just check Google on the station.
@@Jambo-u2k from my understanding from past videos the public access path takes a 90 deg turn, into the area they walked half way into the video, immediately before the padlocked gate?
None of you noticed the bell push button that people ring to be let through. They do this so they know WHO is coming onto their land.
@@Gigz69not legal.
The station is closed 😂
And by the way, Denton's Solicitors are no longer the external solicitors for Network Rail 😉
@@ALTNABREAC stick to the facts,
There does seem to be a legitimate question about why BTP have become engaged in this matter. Unfortunately their website does not fully clarify whether they can be contacted about a Civil Matter but as they omit this from the list of things they do, perhaps that is sufficient to signify that they can't. Certainly the Police Scotland website does make it clear that they can't, as does the website for Police England & Wales. The only exception in those cases seems to be if violence is threatened or actually happening. As, seemingly, BTP would not normally be involved in dealing with Boundary disputes, why would they employ lawyers with such specialist training, based on whose advice the BTP officer confidently asserts that the couple do not own the land as they claim. But, in any event, NR earlier seemed to claim that they owned the land which the 'driveway' is on but have since retracted that claim. Having been wrong once, surely, casts doubt on their assertions now. Whilst, the couple seem to be understandably robust in their assertions that they own the land and are refusing to consent to NR coming on to that land, I don't think a reasonable person would conclude that their actions rise to the level of a threat of violence.
There are several options for NR to enter onto land they do not own, such as rights of way or access agreements included when they sold off land, and the general power to come onto any land, presumably to deal with emergancies such as a rail crash, collapsed embankments and fallen tress, or to prevent such events. However, they are not relying on those rights, their claim is to own the land. In which case, why have they not gone to court to claim the land back once their request (which I presume they made) to return the land to their control was denied. All the advice online from respected organizations regarding boundary disputes is a) discuss politely with party concerned b) try mediation, c) consult solicitor and if necessary go to court. None suggest direct action to reoccupy the land and in some cases say specifically that such action could leave you open to a case against you. Until this is legally resolved one way or another this dispute is likely to run and run. The couple have clearly said on camera that they are happy for the dispute to be resolved in this way. What have NR got against such action, however sound their legal advisors opinions might be, until the matter is settled in court they remain that, opinions, as would any advice the couple might receive from any lawyers employed by them, even if they are more experienced in dealing with such issues than those employed by NR and BTP.
As NR are claiming to own the land to the right of the driveway, why are they not trying to just open up the fence to the right of the gate, which fence they would also no doubt claim to own, to access their land without going onto the land which they agree the couple own. Their failure to do this suggests they know they don't own this land either.
@@Carlos-im3hnAm I missing something, whilst I had not seen any information along the lines of your comments before I made my comments, it is not clear from what you say that there has been a ruling as to who owns the land. From what I have seen the NR claim to enter onto the couples land is that they own the adjoining land, not that they have been granted right of access. I suppose all this exchange proves is that people like me should refrain from making comments on matters which they are not competent to judge. However, I still think it is reasonable to hold the view that all of the issues are best resolved in court. The catalyst for me starting to make comments was the appearance that NR were trying to bully the couple into submission and making improper use of BTP in the process, rather than use the more appropriate legal route. I would reiterate my earlier comment, again from limited knowledge, if NR do in fact own the adjoining land as claimed, why not resolve the matter by opening up a direct access to the right of the track to avoid going onto land which they seem to acknowledge is owned by the couple. One final thought, if the ruling that NR have statutory right of access was gained on the basis that NR own the adjoining land, would the ruling still be valid if they were wrong to have claimed that?
The viewer is in the dark with all of this over the last few vids - both of you are talking over one another which doesn’t help - little wonder that observer is as confused as anybody else including the legal jargon
NOW A SUGGESTION -make a film showing us the area in dispute and what Scotrail are claiming that they own . As you progress with the vid - show us on the map the complete area that is in dispute by pointing a finger at it and then the land - but with nobody there from Scotrail then we might better understand what this issue is .
Consequently you might get somebody watching then who will know what the legal score is
Unless I've not being attention, maps are meaningless without the wording associated with them, ie rights of access by other parties, restrictive covenants etc
We are planning to do a video to explain the land ownership position here more clearly. Yes, we have received feedback from viewers that overtalking each other makes it hard for viewers to hear properly and understand the issues. We take that feedback and will try and not do it!
@LizAltnabreac-u8h sorry to press you on this, but have you published/ can you share the wording of your title deeds that relate to the plans / drawings please?
He is an observer for now? Is he getting promoted later !??. Deny the transport plod right of access as they have become unlawful and corrupt.
Heard a lot about this Altnabreac saga, it's not quite as it's portrayed in this video, Network Rail have the right to access the station and so do passengers, this idea of claiming ownership of the path and station platform is a non starter and for what purpose do you hope gain from it ?
You vould just as easily live with it and got on with your life.
Why have you locked the pedestrian gate? Thought it was a public right of way?
Is their no way you can come to access agreement with NR ? As arguments like this can become very expensive
We've tried to, the last occupiers had one with them, but we just get threatened with arrest.
I have watched all the videos and it is absolute piffle and nonsensical the faff that is going on here.
Support the station, your obstructing in nearly every video. Its a farce.
You clearly had enough money to buy the house and knew about access etc so why cause all this fuss.
Let the guys do their job and get the station open.
Every video , out comes the title of the land.
There was access agreed, you do not and will never own the railway or railway property your just obstructing.
Give Network Rail your land and driveway, you've obviously got plenty of money, you've got Horses!
@@ALTNABREACbut surely your saying on this video about the station numbers going up since you moved in and that yoy use scotrail on a regular basis so isnt this improving the access for you , your in the middle of nowhere its not london paddington , 0.76 passangers a day , there not building a motorway to the station just a small path
@@ALTNABREAC thats a myth, i work very hard to afford my horse you presumptuous ass.
You stated yourself that the previous owner had an arrangement, which you would expect would carry on, but oh no! You have to obstruct then beg other people for money.
You are causing so much disruption to passengers and other staff members.
I hope Network Rail do take it further very soon and get a compulsory purchase order
You act like you care so much, but you don't mention anything about the hundreds of tyres and landfill with fridges and freezers buried.
@@ALTNABREAC funnily enough comments you dont like get deleted, its true what they say on the rail forums🤣
What you did there was show him all this nonsense when he just wanted to take a quick look around.
Can you guys not leverage your position to make an offer to Network Rail?
It's going to be more costly to them to keep going on like this when they clearly don't own the land.
Also why can't they just move the station and build a new one?
And, them accepting your new agreement would be an admission of lack of ownership.
Silly question. Why cant they bring everything they need to do any works...by train? Diggers, 360's, dumpers, ballast etc can all run on the rails?
I was thinking that as well. Network rail I am almost certain will own the track considering train still run on it to this day and they are liable for repairs. So they can surley run as many trains as they like along the line.
now that is a good question!
They need to own the land to do it! They don't own the station or adjoining land where they've unlawfully constructed the pathway. We own it and they need our permission...
@@LizAltnabreac-u8hwhen Network Rail sold the land didn’t they realise they also needed access to the station to maintain it? Short sightedness on their part.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8hthey own everything six feet either side of the track bed
The midgies are evil 😂. This shows you being very polite to these people who have attended the property. I don't much about your situation but from what I can gather. BR sold the house and made a mistake by not putting down on paper that there should be a right of way to the station. Thats there mistake if I am correct i dont know to much about the Land up there with you but I come from as small village on the west coast and grew up on a small holding of crofts. So I know a little about crofts. I would be looking for compensation from Network rail with to regards to Damage caused while the workmen were there. I do hope you can get somewhere with this. I believe that not only have had damage to property but also mental health. I will continue to support and keep a watch on your Channel to see how this goes. I hope you have great day best wishes. 😊
Thanks for all you support in comments, it is appreciated. You have a great day too 👍
Yup big companies behave like this daily, we had building work opposite us and the used a roller that was ' not to be used within a set distance of housing' due to its production of load low frequency (basically for motorway work) they used this because it was "faster" due to compacted concrete and rock (the easy option) they got a desist notice after 3 days delayed by their lawyers and guess what, the work was done. Same when laying concrete ( started using a XL concrete vibrator at midnight till after 3 am due to bad planning again nothing done as they had finished
Get it in writing any damage caused to your property would need compensating.. And and damage cause will be renovated to its original state.. Problem Solved.. 👍
There's a huge difference from having ramblers walk through a pathway, the network wants to set up access for vehicles and machinery. Damage is the least of the problems, it's privacy issues etc. And if you give a corporation an inch, they will absolutely take a mile. And giving access is not just a one off, it will mean the network can access anytime they want.
Why don't you sit down with your solicitor and set up a WAYLEAVES agreement with Network Rail and let them get on with what they need to do (with documented conditions) and receive an annual payment for it? Are you getting some sort of buzz from this? If not sooner or later it will have a massive impact on your health. Second question: what did you anticipate when you bought the house?
We have offered them a Wayleave many months ago
That is exactly what needs to be in place, a wayleave. We have offered to grant one to Network Rail but they are trying to use our land without one which is unlawful. Our priority right now is stopping them coming back onto our land and we hope to seek recourse at the civil court. We do not get a 'buzz' out of this. We are passionate about the truth and sharing videos to the public to be transparent about what is REALLY happening at Altnabreac and why the station is still closed. Network Rail and Scotrail are keeping the truth from the public in their one-sided news reports using mainstream news. We want to ensure the public are presented with our side and the FULL FACTS.
@@LizAltnabreac-u8h Well said Liz. I wonder what the negative people on here would do if the same thing happened to them. Keep positive Liz and Ian and get the legal team in ASAP to sort it all out.
You sound Welsh, butt. We Welsh don't like bullies, do we?
Clearly a great place to live, especially when you've relocated hundreds of miles to get there.
Would asking NR £100k for 3 months access be a possible resolution? Or does that open other problems later? If NR require access later u charge them £1000 per day?
Yes we offered them a temporary access agreement, but they used the BTP instead.
Yep, plus build a little cafe kiosk.
at 18.41 you can see a sign at the end off the platform saying "private property keep out" are you saying you own a working platform ? many thanks Harry
Yes, we do own the land that was used as the station platform. Network Rail require our permission to use it just like they would need your permission to use you garden if you have one. Network Rail do not own it. Indeed, Network Rail do not own all stations in the UK contrary to popular belief.
Strange how "the observer" did all the talking.
Just let them get on the work
They can if they do things legally and get our permission....Until then, they have no right to access and use our land. Very straightforward.
Can I ask a simple question, how did Sutherland and Caithness Railway, the Highland Railway, LMSR, British Rail, and now Network Rail access the station before you bought the property ? Many thanks Harry
We plan to cover the conveyancing history into Station House and the railway line passing through Altnabreac soon hopefully. This should answer your question. Thanks for commenting.
It's just a power trip. They would find it far easier to apply to just go around your property
Sorry about the paper noise, it annoyed me to.
would it not be simpler to let Network rail complete there works then, let the station open, and deal with continued access through a legal route, I only recently started watching and appreciate your position, but it could be argued in court you are being obstructive. I appreciate how difficult it must be to fight a large wealthy corporation, would it not even be worth it to even do a limited "gofundme", to allow you get get a legal opinion from a KC?
No it wouldn't be better to let Network Rail do the works first, because they would try and make a claim to a 'Right'. We have made a GoFundMe which is pinned to the top of comments. Thanks for your comment
Hello, thank you for your comment. We have set up a Go Fund me account to help us deal with this through the lawful channels of the civil court. Our link is pinned at the top of this video.
Let do there job ffs ! Why all this shit
@@martym1798 pity not your home
Priceless, BTP have no authority, keep standing your ground brother!
If they play this right they could get a good deal out of this for instance a large sum of money each year and free rail tickets for life etc. that company is worth millions dont forget maybe house insurance paid by them incase of building and land damage.
If you are acting as an observer, you observe, the moment you talk, you are no longer acting as an observer, also an observer must not be Paid by either party, as you are obligated to the party that pays you.
With any land dispute it is never easy to just to say OK to workman entering private property, and even worse when there is public right of way. We also have to bear in mind the property owners are dealing with Scottish law, not England and Wales law.
Personally, I would not let any workman on to the land unless they can back their visit with order from the court, just in case they believe they now have an implied right of access !
In Australia they are doing this by so called native title and are taking away huge amounts of farmland and mining when we voted NO! Even the aboriginal ppl hate what’s happening
Utter rubbish - and probably racist rubbish, too
When there is no construction happening, why does Network Rail turn up in full PPE?
Notice how clean it is too. Desk jockeys
If a member of public gets injured by tripping over on that path then who would be liable if they took action? This is one of many reasons why this access and ownership dispute needs to be legally bound and resolved
@@neil4uk175 i didn’t mean that. What I meant was it needs to be legally binding on who owns what. If a passenger fell over or tripped over then who is liable? Someone has to have the rights of ownership
@@neil4uk175 pointless person aren’t you. You can’t read
I totally understand the guys position
That network rail are chancing their arm just to keep pushing and annoy the owners of the property
If the network rail had asked in a polite manner instead of going in guns blazing thugs might have turned out differently.
A solicitors letter should stop this. It’s clearly a legal matter. Best handed over to a solicitor. It looks like a clear case so you will get your costs back.
I think you are correct, but a solicitor shouldn't be necessary. NR should just pay the couple for the privilege of accessing their land.I was accused of driving at 90mph and decided to represent myself due to the fact a soliciter would have cost £2000-£3000. If found guilty 5-6 points + £500. I try to negotiate with the procurator fiscal and would have been willing to accept a reduced speed with 3 points. Unfortunately for the PF he refused to talk to me and pursued the case and had had to abandon the case in court due to me cross examining both traffic policemen and exposing their lies in their written statements.
People in certain positions of authority won't listen or show any respect for the small man. Had I had a solicitor my case would have been negotiated and I would have got a estimated £100 fine and 3 points and no court appearances.
A traffic stop is a matter of facts, this is a matter of law. This is a situation where there are complicated land access rights being claimed by both parties. One of these parties is trying to deny said right. The denial comes from the landowner who is the position of power. In my opinion they should get an injunction to get a proper judgement on the matter. An injunction cost around £240 and can be done with or without a solicitor. But I would recommend a solicitor.
You need a big gate with a lock and stop any communication with them until court
They already cut chains with help from the police.
Where was the original access route to the station when it was operational and did it cross your land, if so, was that sold off to yourselves as part of your property, when the station was closed.
Persons who fail to fully identify and explain their reasons for being there when requesting access to your property should be sent packing until they do so.
As it would appear that Network Rail intend re-opening the station why is there only access to it across your private property, unless it was always the case and were there other access route available.
Put up a removal of implied right access sign. Attach a fee schedule for those breaking your terms. Then sue the individuals in their private capacity.
If they are seeking consent, they know they don't have authority
You mention that there is a public right of access, that being the case Network Rail have this right. You should be careful otherwise may may be liable to Network Rail standing and delay costs.
No they don't, that's why it's been over 9 months already.
When you look at the land map
ua-cam.com/video/JJ6q9vngTkA/v-deo.html
NR do have a right of way.... just saying
I was looking up maps online they own right way on road....
I'm so confused now I think I'll give up trying to understand it all....
The description of this video seems to say it's an old video. I've been thinking it was filmed today!
So that's why there's no white rock put down to the right hand side after the public access through the gate?
And at the end you seem to be INVITING them to use your drive and to come over the cattle grid as "It's solid and can't be damaged" ???
So now I just haven't a clue at all what the whole thing is about!
Sorry I'm probably just old and thick!
Whatever happens I hope it works out well for all concerned.
It's probably the most confused youtube channel I've ever encountered as well. What the actual dispute is, I have no idea, they just keep saying that NR are trying to take their land, but up to now they appear to have provided no specific details at all. Can't believe they have set up a go fund me page based on the miniscule details and content so far, absolutely bizarre
I get the distinct impression that Liz and Ian would happily allow NR and their contractors to use their driveway to access the property if NR would reach an agreement similar to what NR had with the previous owners, however NR do not want to agree to the conditions so have resorted to using threats of arrest and intimidation from BTP to ride roughshod over Liz and Ian’s rights as the landowners.
All it would take to resolve this is NR to be reasonable and come to an access agreement that would allow the contractors to have reasonable access across the land to do the necessary work and upgrades needed to reopen the station but NR donor seem to be willing to reach an amicable compromise and instead are abusing the influence they have with BTP to try bullying Liz and Ian into giving up their rights.
@@cuddlybear_uk i don't normally post here anymore, but as you've asked:
There is a FOI request that clearly shows NR never had any such agreement with the previous occupants.
I have never seen any evidence of NR staff being threatening or intimidating, quite the opposite.
I have never seen any evidence of BTP being anything other than professional, and have certainly never seen any evidence of them being threatening or intimidating.
The only evidence of rudeness and obstruction that I've seen has been by Ian and Liz. Have a good evening.
How can this be up to date? There is no path that the bigger put in to the hedge?
I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as right of way under Scots Law. In Scotland i have the right to wander anywhere i like.
I think you might have misunderstood the law in Scotland. You don't have the right to access everywhere. There are specific laws under the 2003 Land Reform Act which exclude areas from the universal right of access. Examples are houses, gardens and non-residential buildings and associated land, land in which crops are growing, sports or playing fields (where exercising access rights would interfere with their use), airfields, railways, quarries, and visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry.
Carry a magnifying glass so he can read it
I can’t see an end to this apart from selling the property to the Railway. It’s just not worth the stress.
Please share the wording on your title deeds, Apologies if this has been asked before.
Maps are meaningless without any supporting documentation
ua-cam.com/video/JJ6q9vngTkA/v-deo.htmlsi=peoBC9T1DMuhGBEf
Send them an invoice for the consultation