On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:59:33 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/04/2024 18:01, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> There was a kerfuffle on one of the village discussion boards recently
>> when a parent asked if someone could take their children to school and
>> collect them at the end of the day for a couple of weeks if they gave
>> them some money to cover fuel plus inconvenience.  They were reminded
>> that the driver should ideally be DBS checked and that they'd need to
>> have taxi insurance for their vehicle as they're carrying passengers for
>> hire or reward which is specifically excluded from the policy and
>> without that the children would be being carried in a vehicle that
>> wasn't insured.
>
>I'm reminded that, when the children were at school, we banded with
>other families, so that we could take turns in doing the lengthy school
>run. I do wonder whether the reciprocal nature of the arrangement
>amounted to reward, requiring some sort of taxi insurance?

This comes across to me as one of those *theoretical* debates so
beloved of posters here.. Has anyone any knowledge of anyone having an
insurance claim rejected because they took a few quid towards petrol?

On 11/04/2024 05:50 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:59:33 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/2024 18:01, Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>>> There was a kerfuffle on one of the village discussion boards recently
>>> when a parent asked if someone could take their children to school and
>>> collect them at the end of the day for a couple of weeks if they gave
>>> them some money to cover fuel plus inconvenience.  They were reminded
>>> that the driver should ideally be DBS checked and that they'd need to
>>> have taxi insurance for their vehicle as they're carrying passengers for
>>> hire or reward which is specifically excluded from the policy and
>>> without that the children would be being carried in a vehicle that
>>> wasn't insured.
>>
>> I'm reminded that, when the children were at school, we banded with
>> other families, so that we could take turns in doing the lengthy school
>> run. I do wonder whether the reciprocal nature of the arrangement
>> amounted to reward, requiring some sort of taxi insurance?
>
> This comes across to me as one of those *theoretical* debates so
> beloved of posters here.. Has anyone any knowledge of anyone having an
> insurance claim rejected because they took a few quid towards petrol?

Since that arrangement is specifically defined as not being "for hire
and reward" under the 1988 Road Traffic Act, why would an insurance
company take that line?

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:50:29 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:59:33 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10/04/2024 18:01, Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>>> There was a kerfuffle on one of the village discussion boards recently
>>> when a parent asked if someone could take their children to school and
>>> collect them at the end of the day for a couple of weeks if they gave
>>> them some money to cover fuel plus inconvenience.  They were reminded
>>> that the driver should ideally be DBS checked and that they'd need to
>>> have taxi insurance for their vehicle as they're carrying passengers for
>>> hire or reward which is specifically excluded from the policy and
>>> without that the children would be being carried in a vehicle that
>>> wasn't insured.
>>
>>I'm reminded that, when the children were at school, we banded with
>>other families, so that we could take turns in doing the lengthy school
>>run. I do wonder whether the reciprocal nature of the arrangement
>>amounted to reward, requiring some sort of taxi insurance?
>
>This comes across to me as one of those *theoretical* debates so
>beloved of posters here.. Has anyone any knowledge of anyone having an
>insurance claim rejected because they took a few quid towards petrol?

OK, I'll be more precise. Has anyone any knowledge of anyone having
an insurance claim rejected because they took a few quid towards
petrol when helping out a neighbour or friend by moving some furniture
for them or taking their rubbish to the recycling centre.? Note that I
am talking about *insurance claims* here, not waste carrier issues as
detailed by Simon and others.

On 11/04/2024 17:50, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:59:33 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/2024 18:01, Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>>> There was a kerfuffle on one of the village discussion boards recently
>>> when a parent asked if someone could take their children to school and
>>> collect them at the end of the day for a couple of weeks if they gave
>>> them some money to cover fuel plus inconvenience.  They were reminded
>>> that the driver should ideally be DBS checked and that they'd need to
>>> have taxi insurance for their vehicle as they're carrying passengers for
>>> hire or reward which is specifically excluded from the policy and
>>> without that the children would be being carried in a vehicle that
>>> wasn't insured.
>>
>> I'm reminded that, when the children were at school, we banded with
>> other families, so that we could take turns in doing the lengthy school
>> run. I do wonder whether the reciprocal nature of the arrangement
>> amounted to reward, requiring some sort of taxi insurance?
>
> This comes across to me as one of those *theoretical* debates so
> beloved of posters here.. Has anyone any knowledge of anyone having an
> insurance claim rejected because they took a few quid towards petrol?

No. But I do recall in the mid 1980's volunteer members of the uniformed
civil service were required to have their vehicles insured for business
use so that car sharing was possible when travelling to remote sites.
Standard rate travel expenses were paid to the driver by HMG.

Also that travelling in uniform was strictly *not permitted* when the
Troubles got hot on mainland UK (a condition imposed by the insurers).

--
Martin Brown

On 11/04/2024 11:45, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 18:02, Simon Parker wrote:
>> You may only transport your own domestic waste to the HWRC, including
>> garden waste.  We've already discussed previously here that waste
>> generated by workman or contractors working on your house isn't
>> covered not is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
>> neighbour's garden.
>
>
> Hmm.  Given that I don't drive (and the tip doesn't allow walk-in users,
> even if I was capable of walking that far), is there any legal way for
> me to take/send stuff to the tip.  If I get a friend to take stuff down
> there for me, does it make a difference if I'm in the car at the time?

Mark Goodge has made an excellent post to the thread summarising the
situation far better than I would have done.

My feeling is that if you travel with the waste it is an unregulated
activity but if your friend takes it without you being present, they
ought to have a higher-tier licence.

In reality, providing the friend wasn't doing it regularly for numerous
people I would consider it "de minimis", but I do not work in the
enforcement department at your local authority so my opinion is worth
even less than you paid for it.

> A few years ago, when the council introduced a requirement for all cars
> to be registered to be able to visit the tip, I had a long email
> conversation with the councillor who was responsible for introducing the
> scheme.  He was quite happy with the idea that I might be asking other
> people to take stuff to the tip for me.  They didn't do any
> cross-checking with DVLA, so I would have been able to register my
> brother's car[1], for example, to my address, if I wanted him to take
> stuff down there when he was visiting.
>
> [1]  My brother lives a couple of counties away, and so wouldn't be able
> to use the tip if it was registered to his home address.

Anecdata: I've had a related problem. I was visiting a relative and, as
I would be virtually passing the local HWRC on my way home, he asked if
I'd dispose of some items for him as I was passing. (No I don't have a
higher-tier licence.) When I arrived at the HWRC, I was pulled aside as
the ANPR recognised that my vehicle usually visited a different site.
(Not surprisingly, the one nearest to me.) I had a brief conversation
with the person operating the entry barrier and explained why I was
visiting the "wrong" HWRC. He asked for my relative's name and address
and asked if I would mind calling them on my mobile and passing the
mobile to him once connected, which I did. He asked who they were,
their address and their relationship to me, all of which tallied with
what I'd told him and he let me dispose of the items.

He explained that the ANPR data was shared between all of the HWRC they
operated in the area and that the number of permitted visits (which I
referenced in a previous post) applies across all sites and not per site.

We then had a brief conversation about why this was necessary and it was
down to the proliferation of clear commercial waste being dumped at
their facilities typically by builders and landscapers, which I
expected. But the other issue, which I hadn't thought about, was "House
Clearance" people that get paid for clearing a house, sell everything of
value and then need to get rid of the rest. Far cheaper for them to
dump it at the HWRC, than get it disposed of correctly, especially as it
looks like the every day items people take to the HWRC. He told me that
prior to the current system being introduced, they had a guy with a
massive four-wheeled caged trailer that used to come daily, sometimes
multiple times a day, with furniture, carpets, etc. who was clearly
operating a house clearance business and just dumping everything he
couldn't sell at the HWRC. When questioned, it was always from the
house of a relative that had recently died. The HWRC employee joked
that he must have had at least 1,000 aunts and uncles. :-)

Unfortunately, you seem to have been caught in the cross-fire of
eliminating this flagrant abuse of the system.

Regards

S.P.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:31:27 +0100, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/04/2024 11:45, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

>> Hmm.  Given that I don't drive (and the tip doesn't allow walk-in users,
>> even if I was capable of walking that far), is there any legal way for
>> me to take/send stuff to the tip.  If I get a friend to take stuff down
>> there for me, does it make a difference if I'm in the car at the time?
>
>Mark Goodge has made an excellent post to the thread summarising the
>situation far better than I would have done.
>
>My feeling is that if you travel with the waste it is an unregulated
>activity but if your friend takes it without you being present, they
>ought to have a higher-tier licence.

They would probably be exempt from needing a carrier licence by virtue of
being a voluntary organisation[1] (I don't think there's any law which
insists that a person cannot be a sole organisation, so to speak), provided
that they don't "normally and regularly" transport waste[2]. And if they do
do it regularly, then they would, if they meet the definition of a voluntary
organisation, only need a lower-tier lience (as per Adam Funk's anecdata in
a separate part of this thread).

>In reality, providing the friend wasn't doing it regularly for numerous
>people I would consider it "de minimis", but I do not work in the
>enforcement department at your local authority so my opinion is worth
>even less than you paid for it.

>From my perspective as a councillor, and who has some inside knowledge into
the way enforcement works, I'd also agree with that. The one caveat is that
all of our sites have CCTV and ANPR, and if a particular vehicle and/or
driver is making an unusually large number of trips then the driver can
expect an initial polite query, which may escalate to impolite if the staff
suspect that the Australian lager is being appropriated. Your anecdata
(which I've snipped, as I can't add anything useful to it) is a good
illustration of why this is necessary.

People taking stuff to the tip for elderly or disabled friends and relatives
isn't really a concern, because it's not generating any additional net
increase of waste over the amount that would turn up if they were all taking
it themselves. Ditto voluntary groups doing it for a donation. The concerns
start to arise when it tips over into a business transaction, in which case
a higher-tier carrier licence will be required and the disposal itself may
well be chargeable.

[1] The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, section 24(5)(a)
[2] Ibid, section 26(1)(a)

Mark

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l7pqtdFc728U25@mid.individual.net...
> On 10/04/2024 20:56, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> You may only transport your own domestic waste to the HWRC,
>>> including garden waste.
>>> We've already discussed previously here that waste generated
>>> by workman or contractors working on your house isn't covered
>>> not is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
>>> neighbour's garden.
>>
>> And in the case of leaves which have fallen from the overhanging
>> branches of a neighbour's tree ?
>>
>> Which would obviously be a regular occurrence; unlike any overhanging
>> branches which having been removed and offered to the neighbour,
>> being formerly their property, as were presumably the leaves,
>> have been politely declined.
>
> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.

The point at issue is whether or not you're entitled to transport
fallen leaves from a neighbour's tree, or for that matter overhanging
branches which you've removed, in your own car, to the to the HWRC.
Given that they were generated elsewhere i.e. in the neighbour's garden.

bb

On 12/04/2024 16:39, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l7pqtdFc728U25@mid.individual.net...
>> On 10/04/2024 20:56, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> You may only transport your own domestic waste to the HWRC,
>>>> including garden waste.
>>>> We've already discussed previously here that waste generated
>>>> by workman or contractors working on your house isn't covered
>>>> not is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
>>>> neighbour's garden.
>>>
>>> And in the case of leaves which have fallen from the overhanging
>>> branches of a neighbour's tree ?
>>>
>>> Which would obviously be a regular occurrence; unlike any overhanging
>>> branches which having been removed and offered to the neighbour,
>>> being formerly their property, as were presumably the leaves,
>>> have been politely declined.
>>
>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>
> The point at issue is whether or not you're entitled to transport
> fallen leaves from a neighbour's tree, or for that matter overhanging
> branches which you've removed, in your own car, to the to the HWRC.
> Given that they were generated elsewhere i.e. in the neighbour's garden.

As it could be very difficult to prove exactly which tree they had come
from, I suspect that wind blown leaves should be treated like
fly-tipping: wherever they come from, they become the responsibility of
the land owner to dispose of.

--
Colin Bignell

"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:bx6dnVWC-Yqk-YT7nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 12/04/2024 16:39, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:l7pqtdFc728U25@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 10/04/2024 20:56, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> You may only transport your own domestic waste to the HWRC,
>>>>> including garden waste.
>>>>> We've already discussed previously here that waste generated
>>>>> by workman or contractors working on your house isn't covered
>>>>> not is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
>>>>> neighbour's garden.
>>>>
>>>> And in the case of leaves which have fallen from the overhanging
>>>> branches of a neighbour's tree ?
>>>>
>>>> Which would obviously be a regular occurrence; unlike any overhanging
>>>> branches which having been removed and offered to the neighbour,
>>>> being formerly their property, as were presumably the leaves,
>>>> have been politely declined.
>>>
>>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
>>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>>
>> The point at issue is whether or not you're entitled to transport
>> fallen leaves from a neighbour's tree, or for that matter overhanging
>> branches which you've removed, in your own car, to the to the HWRC.
>> Given that they were generated elsewhere i.e. in the neighbour's garden.
>
> As it could be very difficult to prove exactly which tree they had
> come from, I suspect that wind blown leaves should be treated like
> fly-tipping:

These are leaves which drop off vertically from the neighbour's
tree each autumn

> wherever they come from, they become the responsibility
> of the land owner to dispose of.

So what about overhanging branches ?

In most cases* householders are entitled to remove branches which overhang
their property but are required to offer them to the owner of the tree. Which
the owner of the tree can then decline. Which would seem to confirm that
they're the neighbour's property. So would the person who removed the
branches be entitled to transport them to the HRWC in their own car ?

bb

* With, at a guess, a possible exception in the case of protected trees

On 12/04/2024 20:29, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:bx6dnVWC-Yqk-YT7nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 12/04/2024 16:39, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:l7pqtdFc728U25@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 10/04/2024 20:56, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> You may only transport your own domestic waste to the HWRC,
>>>>>> including garden waste.
>>>>>> We've already discussed previously here that waste generated
>>>>>> by workman or contractors working on your house isn't covered
>>>>>> not is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
>>>>>> neighbour's garden.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the case of leaves which have fallen from the overhanging
>>>>> branches of a neighbour's tree ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which would obviously be a regular occurrence; unlike any overhanging
>>>>> branches which having been removed and offered to the neighbour,
>>>>> being formerly their property, as were presumably the leaves,
>>>>> have been politely declined.
>>>>
>>>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
>>>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>>>
>>> The point at issue is whether or not you're entitled to transport
>>> fallen leaves from a neighbour's tree, or for that matter overhanging
>>> branches which you've removed, in your own car, to the to the HWRC.
>>> Given that they were generated elsewhere i.e. in the neighbour's garden.
>>
>> As it could be very difficult to prove exactly which tree they had
>> come from, I suspect that wind blown leaves should be treated like
>> fly-tipping:
>
> These are leaves which drop off vertically from the neighbour's
> tree each autumn

You must live in a place with virtually no wind. The leaves in my garden
could have been blown in from almost anywhere.

>
>> wherever they come from, they become the responsibility
>> of the land owner to dispose of.
>
> So what about overhanging branches ?
>
> In most cases* householders are entitled to remove branches which overhang
> their property but are required to offer them to the owner of the tree. Which
> the owner of the tree can then decline. Which would seem to confirm that
> they're the neighbour's property.

Up to the point where they decline, after which the branches are yours,
to dispose of as you will.

> So would the person who removed the
> branches be entitled to transport them to the HRWC in their own car ?
>
>
> bb
>
> * With, at a guess, a possible exception in the case of protected trees
>
>
>
>
>

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:29:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

>
>"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
>news:bx6dnVWC-Yqk-YT7nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com...

>> wherever they come from, they become the responsibility
>> of the land owner to dispose of.
>
>So what about overhanging branches ?
>
>In most cases* householders are entitled to remove branches which overhang
>their property but are required to offer them to the owner of the tree. Which
>the owner of the tree can then decline. Which would seem to confirm that
>they're the neighbour's property. So would the person who removed the
>branches be entitled to transport them to the HRWC in their own car ?

If you're interesed in the minutiae of garden related legal questions, the
excellent gardenlaw.co.uk website is your friend. But from a waste disposal
perspective, the waste belongs to household in which it became waste. So if
you trim back a neighbour's tree which overhangs your property (as you are
entitled to do), and your neighbour declines your offer to return the
branches (as he is entitled to do), then it's your waste, to dispose of
lawfully as you see fit. Ditto windfall fruit and autumn leaves; the owner
of the tree is entitled to claim them if he wishes, but if he does not, they
become the property of the owner of the land onto which they fell.

Note that this is entirely separate to the question of whether windblown
leaves, overhanging branches or overgrown shrubs are a statutory nuisance.
In some cases they may be, but that is not affected by nor affects the
matter of ownership.

Mark

On 12/04/2024 16:39, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l7pqtdFc728U25@mid.individual.net...
>> On 10/04/2024 20:56, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> You may only transport your own domestic waste to the HWRC,
>>>> including garden waste.
>>>> We've already discussed previously here that waste generated
>>>> by workman or contractors working on your house isn't covered
>>>> not is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
>>>> neighbour's garden.
>>>
>>> And in the case of leaves which have fallen from the overhanging
>>> branches of a neighbour's tree ?
>>>
>>> Which would obviously be a regular occurrence; unlike any overhanging
>>> branches which having been removed and offered to the neighbour,
>>> being formerly their property, as were presumably the leaves,
>>> have been politely declined.
>>
>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>
> The point at issue is whether or not you're entitled to transport
> fallen leaves from a neighbour's tree, or for that matter overhanging
> branches which you've removed, in your own car, to the to the HWRC.
> Given that they were generated elsewhere i.e. in the neighbour's garden.

The leaves are *your* responsibility. (I've added some highlighting
this time as you either didn't understand that quite simple statement
first time around or you are being deliberately obtuse.)

As they are your responsibility, you may deposit them in an appropriate
bin for garden waste, (if you have one), or you may transport them to
the HWRC should you so choose, but probably the best thing you can do
with them is to compost them in to "Gardener's Gold" (providing they're
not "waxy").

Were you to blow them from your garden and out onto the footway and be
issued a FPN for fly-tipping, a defence of "But they're my neighbour's
leaves - they came from his tree" is unlikely to be of assistance.

The same applies to branches you remove from your neighbour's tree.
Except, they should first be offered to the neighbour but if they
decline, as is likely, the branches are your responsibility. (I'm
hoping highlighting isn't required this time.)

The RHS have a helpful page [^1] if you're still struggling with the issue.

Regards

S.P.

[^1] https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/types/trees/the-law

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l809utFc728U32@mid.individual.net...
> On 12/04/2024 16:39, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:l7pqtdFc728U25@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 10/04/2024 20:56, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> You may only transport your own domestic waste to the HWRC,
>>>>> including garden waste.
>>>>> We've already discussed previously here that waste generated
>>>>> by workman or contractors working on your house isn't covered
>>>>> not is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
>>>>> neighbour's garden.
>>>>
>>>> And in the case of leaves which have fallen from the overhanging
>>>> branches of a neighbour's tree ?
>>>>
>>>> Which would obviously be a regular occurrence; unlike any overhanging
>>>> branches which having been removed and offered to the neighbour,
>>>> being formerly their property, as were presumably the leaves,
>>>> have been politely declined.
>>>
>>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
>>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>>
>> The point at issue is whether or not you're entitled to transport
>> fallen leaves from a neighbour's tree, or for that matter overhanging
>> branches which you've removed, in your own car, to the to the HWRC.
>> Given that they were generated elsewhere i.e. in the neighbour's garden.
>
> The leaves are *your* responsibility. (I've added some highlighting
> this time as you
> either didn't understand that quite simple statement first time around
> or you are being deliberately obtuse.)

While I'll add some further highlighting to your *quite simple statement*

quote:

*The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance*

:unquote

And so either you didn't understand what you'd written at the time or you're
suffering from short term memory problems.

In both of which instances, you would of course be entirely blameless;
in sharp contrast say to any totally unwarranted accusations of
deliberate obtuseness on my part

bb

On 14/04/2024 10:15, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l809utFc728U32@mid.individual.net...
>> On 12/04/2024 16:39, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:l7pqtdFc728U25@mid.individual.net...

>>>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
>>>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>>>
>>> The point at issue is whether or not you're entitled to transport
>>> fallen leaves from a neighbour's tree, or for that matter overhanging
>>> branches which you've removed, in your own car, to the to the HWRC.
>>> Given that they were generated elsewhere i.e. in the neighbour's garden.
>>
>> The leaves are *your* responsibility. (I've added some highlighting
>> this time as you
>> either didn't understand that quite simple statement first time around
>> or you are being deliberately obtuse.)
>
> While I'll add some further highlighting to your *quite simple statement*
>
> quote:
>
> *The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance*
>
> :unquote
>
>
> And so either you didn't understand what you'd written at the time or you're
> suffering from short term memory problems.

Actually, that's not the full quote is it? Let's go with the full
quotation of what I said as you're clearly having issues parsing simple
sentences.

quote:

The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance,
say for example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.

:unquote

Let's break the sentence down:

Clause 1: The leaves are your responsibility,
Clause 2: unless they are creating a nuisance,
Clause 3: say for example by blocking a drain,
Clause 4: but even that might be a stretch.

The only clause of any relevance to your question was the first one, the
others merely added further information for other scenarios.

Clauses two through four state that if the leaves are creating a
nuisance, say for example by blocking a drain, your neighbour may bear
some responsibility, but even that might be a stretch, and this
information was provided merely in the name of giving a more complete
answer.

In the example you posited, and to which I was providing a direct
answer, the leaves were not creating a nuisance which leaves us (pun
intended) with the simple statement: "The leaves are your responsibility".

It really isn't difficult.

> In both of which instances, you would of course be entirely blameless;

I have neither problems understanding what I'd written, nor memory issues.

Any issues with comprehending what I had written are entirely of your
making, and I use that last word quite deliberately.

> in sharp contrast say to any totally unwarranted accusations of
> deliberate obtuseness on my part

Indeed! Heaven forfend. You're clearly not being deliberately obtuse
and any accusation of same on my part is wholly unfounded(!).

Regards

S.P.

On 13/04/2024 15:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:29:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
>> news:bx6dnVWC-Yqk-YT7nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>>> wherever they come from, they become the responsibility
>>> of the land owner to dispose of.
>>
>> So what about overhanging branches ?
>>
>> In most cases* householders are entitled to remove branches which overhang
>> their property but are required to offer them to the owner of the tree. Which
>> the owner of the tree can then decline. Which would seem to confirm that
>> they're the neighbour's property. So would the person who removed the
>> branches be entitled to transport them to the HRWC in their own car ?
>
> If you're interesed in the minutiae of garden related legal questions, the
> excellent gardenlaw.co.uk website is your friend. But from a waste disposal
> perspective, the waste belongs to household in which it became waste. So if
> you trim back a neighbour's tree which overhangs your property (as you are
> entitled to do), and your neighbour declines your offer to return the
> branches (as he is entitled to do), then it's your waste, to dispose of
> lawfully as you see fit. Ditto windfall fruit and autumn leaves; the owner
> of the tree is entitled to claim them if he wishes, but if he does not, they
> become the property of the owner of the land onto which they fell.

Interesting. I have always taken it as fair game to harvest any
overhanging fruit - have I been breaking the law?

My neighbour massacres his fruit trees so that they almost never have
any fruit on his side of the fence. I look after the small proportion of
the branches that are on my side (and treat the copious woolly aphid).

The (very) old trees are on the boundary line and neither of us have any
idea which house they belong to. I try to help him prune them correctly
every year but a chainsaw can do a lot of damage in a couple of hours.

Gardening isn't exactly his thing.

--
Martin Brown

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 19:54:18 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 13/04/2024 15:42, Mark Goodge wrote:

>> If you're interesed in the minutiae of garden related legal questions, the
>> excellent gardenlaw.co.uk website is your friend. But from a waste disposal
>> perspective, the waste belongs to household in which it became waste. So if
>> you trim back a neighbour's tree which overhangs your property (as you are
>> entitled to do), and your neighbour declines your offer to return the
>> branches (as he is entitled to do), then it's your waste, to dispose of
>> lawfully as you see fit. Ditto windfall fruit and autumn leaves; the owner
>> of the tree is entitled to claim them if he wishes, but if he does not, they
>> become the property of the owner of the land onto which they fell.
>
>Interesting. I have always taken it as fair game to harvest any
>overhanging fruit - have I been breaking the law?

Well, you have been appropriating property that is not yours with the intent
to permanently deprive the true owner. That's two-thirds of the necessary
elements of theft[1].

However, your actions are almost certainly not dishonest, which is the third
required element. If you genuinely, albeit wrongly, believed that you had
the right to pick the fruit then your actions are not dishonest[2]. And even
if you are aware that you have no such right, but you nonetheless genuinely
believe that the owner consents to your actions, then, again, your actions
are not dishonest[3]. Given that you have been picking the fruit for some
time without complaint, that is an entirely reasonable assumption to make.
So the only real prospect of you ever being prosecuted for theft of the
fruit is if your neighbour made it clear that he wanted you to stop taking
it, but you carried on anyway.

[1] Theft Act 1986 section 1.(1)
[2] Ibid, 2.(1)(a)
[3] Ibid, 2.(1)(b)

Mark

On 12/04/2024 14:06, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:31:27 +0100, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2024 11:45, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
>>> Hmm.  Given that I don't drive (and the tip doesn't allow walk-in users,
>>> even if I was capable of walking that far), is there any legal way for
>>> me to take/send stuff to the tip.  If I get a friend to take stuff down
>>> there for me, does it make a difference if I'm in the car at the time?
>>
>> Mark Goodge has made an excellent post to the thread summarising the
>> situation far better than I would have done.
>>
>> My feeling is that if you travel with the waste it is an unregulated
>> activity but if your friend takes it without you being present, they
>> ought to have a higher-tier licence.
>
> They would probably be exempt from needing a carrier licence by virtue of
> being a voluntary organisation[1] (I don't think there's any law which
> insists that a person cannot be a sole organisation, so to speak), provided
> that they don't "normally and regularly" transport waste[2]. And if they do
> do it regularly, then they would, if they meet the definition of a voluntary
> organisation, only need a lower-tier lience (as per Adam Funk's anecdata in
> a separate part of this thread).

I must remember to tell the friend most likely to be asked, if I need a
tip run to myself (as opposed to someone adding a small bag of my stuff
to the pile they're taking anyway). I think he'd be amused to be
counted as a voluntary organisation!

>> In reality, providing the friend wasn't doing it regularly for numerous
>> people I would consider it "de minimis", but I do not work in the
>> enforcement department at your local authority so my opinion is worth
>> even less than you paid for it.
>
>>From my perspective as a councillor, and who has some inside knowledge into
> the way enforcement works, I'd also agree with that. The one caveat is that
> all of our sites have CCTV and ANPR, and if a particular vehicle and/or
> driver is making an unusually large number of trips then the driver can
> expect an initial polite query, which may escalate to impolite if the staff
> suspect that the Australian lager is being appropriated. Your anecdata
> (which I've snipped, as I can't add anything useful to it) is a good
> illustration of why this is necessary.
>
> People taking stuff to the tip for elderly or disabled friends and relatives
> isn't really a concern, because it's not generating any additional net
> increase of waste over the amount that would turn up if they were all taking
> it themselves. Ditto voluntary groups doing it for a donation. The concerns
> start to arise when it tips over into a business transaction, in which case
> a higher-tier carrier licence will be required and the disposal itself may
> well be chargeable.
>
> [1] The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, section 24(5)(a)
> [2] Ibid, section 26(1)(a)

Thanks and yes, that's my assumption of how it would be viewed, in
practice. I was just intrigued by what the actual legal situation was.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Maturity is a high price to pay for growing up (Tom Stoppard)

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l82im3Fc729U23@mid.individual.net...
> On 14/04/2024 10:15, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:l809utFc728U32@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 12/04/2024 16:39, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:l7pqtdFc728U25@mid.individual.net...
>
>>>>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
>>>>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>>>>
>>>> The point at issue is whether or not you're entitled to transport
>>>> fallen leaves from a neighbour's tree, or for that matter overhanging
>>>> branches which you've removed, in your own car, to the to the HWRC.
>>>> Given that they were generated elsewhere i.e. in the neighbour's garden.
>>>
>>> The leaves are *your* responsibility. (I've added some highlighting
>>> this time as you
>>> either didn't understand that quite simple statement first time around
>>> or you are being deliberately obtuse.)
>>
>> While I'll add some further highlighting to your *quite simple statement*
>>
>> quote:
>>
>> *The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance*
>>
>> :unquote
>>
>>
>> And so either you didn't understand what you'd written at the time or you're
>> suffering from short term memory problems.
>
> Actually, that's not the full quote is it? Let's go with the full quotation of what I
> said as you're clearly having issues parsing simple sentences.
>
> quote:
>
> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>
> :unquote
>
> Let's break the sentence down:
>
> Clause 1: The leaves are your responsibility,
> Clause 2: unless they are creating a nuisance,
> Clause 3: say for example by blocking a drain,
> Clause 4: but even that might be a stretch.
>
> The only clause of any relevance to your question was the first one, the others merely
> added further information for other scenarios.
>
> Clauses two through four state that if the leaves are creating a nuisance, say for
> example by blocking a drain, your neighbour may bear some responsibility, but even that
> might be a stretch, and this information was provided merely in the name of giving a
> more complete answer.
>
> In the example you posited, and to which I was providing a direct answer, the leaves
> were not creating a nuisance which leaves us (pun intended) with the simple statement:
> "The leaves are your responsibility".
>
> It really isn't difficult.
>
>
>> In both of which instances, you would of course be entirely blameless;
>
> I have neither problems understanding what I'd written, nor memory issues.
>
> Any issues with comprehending what I had written are entirely of your making, and I use
> that last word quite deliberately.
>
>
>> in sharp contrast say to any totally unwarranted accusations of
>> deliberate obtuseness on my part
>
> Indeed! Heaven forfend. You're clearly not being deliberately obtuse and any
> accusation of same on my part is wholly unfounded(!).

You appear to be somewhat confused; and are becoming increasingly so.

If you remember the claim to which I was responding was as follows

> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...
>
> We've already discussed previously here that waste generated
> by workman or contractors working on your house isn't covered
> not is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
> neighbour's garden.

To repeat [nor} is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
neighbour's garden....

In response to which I quite reasonably asked

> On 10/04/2024 20:56, billy bookcase wrote:

> And in the case of leaves which have fallen from the overhanging
> branches of a neighbour's tree ?

to which you replied

>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...

> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say for
> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.

Which, as a I pointed out before is all totally irrelevant.

Regardless of who's responsibility they are, or whether they were creating a
nuisance or not, if someone has a big pile of leaves from a neighbours tree
in their car, which presumably they must have swept up themseilves either
that or they left the sunroof open, are they entitled to take them to the
HWRC ? As they were clearly generated in the neighbours garden.

When according to you above they're clearly not.

bb

..

On 15 Apr 2024 at 19:32:48 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

>
> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l82im3Fc729U23@mid.individual.net...
>> On 14/04/2024 10:15, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:l809utFc728U32@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 12/04/2024 16:39, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:l7pqtdFc728U25@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>>>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance,
>>>>>> say for
>>>>>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point at issue is whether or not you're entitled to transport
>>>>> fallen leaves from a neighbour's tree, or for that matter overhanging
>>>>> branches which you've removed, in your own car, to the to the HWRC.
>>>>> Given that they were generated elsewhere i.e. in the neighbour's garden.
>>>>
>>>> The leaves are *your* responsibility. (I've added some highlighting
>>>> this time as you
>>>> either didn't understand that quite simple statement first time around
>>>> or you are being deliberately obtuse.)
>>>
>>> While I'll add some further highlighting to your *quite simple statement*
>>>
>>> quote:
>>>
>>> *The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance*
>>>
>>> :unquote
>>>
>>>
>>> And so either you didn't understand what you'd written at the time or you're
>>> suffering from short term memory problems.
>>
>> Actually, that's not the full quote is it? Let's go with the full quotation
>> of what I
>> said as you're clearly having issues parsing simple sentences.
>>
>> quote:
>>
>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say
>> for
>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>>
>> :unquote
>>
>> Let's break the sentence down:
>>
>> Clause 1: The leaves are your responsibility,
>> Clause 2: unless they are creating a nuisance,
>> Clause 3: say for example by blocking a drain,
>> Clause 4: but even that might be a stretch.
>>
>> The only clause of any relevance to your question was the first one, the
>> others merely
>> added further information for other scenarios.
>>
>> Clauses two through four state that if the leaves are creating a nuisance,
>> say for
>> example by blocking a drain, your neighbour may bear some responsibility, but
>> even that
>> might be a stretch, and this information was provided merely in the name of
>> giving a
>> more complete answer.
>>
>> In the example you posited, and to which I was providing a direct answer, the
>> leaves
>> were not creating a nuisance which leaves us (pun intended) with the simple
>> statement:
>> "The leaves are your responsibility".
>>
>> It really isn't difficult.
>>
>>
>>> In both of which instances, you would of course be entirely blameless;
>>
>> I have neither problems understanding what I'd written, nor memory issues.
>>
>> Any issues with comprehending what I had written are entirely of your making,
>> and I use
>> that last word quite deliberately.
>>
>>
>>> in sharp contrast say to any totally unwarranted accusations of
>>> deliberate obtuseness on my part
>>
>> Indeed! Heaven forfend. You're clearly not being deliberately obtuse and any
>> accusation of same on my part is wholly unfounded(!).
>
> You appear to be somewhat confused; and are becoming increasingly so.
>
> If you remember the claim to which I was responding was as follows
>
>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> We've already discussed previously here that waste generated
>> by workman or contractors working on your house isn't covered
>> not is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
>> neighbour's garden.
>
> To repeat [nor} is waste generated elsewhere, which would include in a
> neighbour's garden....
>
> In response to which I quite reasonably asked
>
>> On 10/04/2024 20:56, billy bookcase wrote:
>
>> And in the case of leaves which have fallen from the overhanging
>> branches of a neighbour's tree ?
>
> to which you replied
>
>>> "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:l7nv17Fc729U19@mid.individual.net...
>
>> The leaves are your responsibility, unless they are creating a nuisance, say
>> for
>> example by blocking a drain, but even that might be a stretch.
>
> Which, as a I pointed out before is all totally irrelevant.
>
> Regardless of who's responsibility they are, or whether they were creating a
> nuisance or not, if someone has a big pile of leaves from a neighbours tree
> in their car, which presumably they must have swept up themseilves either
> that or they left the sunroof open, are they entitled to take them to the
> HWRC ? As they were clearly generated in the neighbours garden.
>
> When according to you above they're clearly not.
>
>
> bb
>

Leaves attached to a tree are not waste. They are part of a tree. Leaves on
the ground are waste, and the waste is generated on the land on which they
fell. (Let us leave aside whimsical and unmeasurable fluke aereal journeys
which in any case can rarely be detected, leaves generally fall downwards.)
So no waste becomes waste in the garden under the tree, whether the trunk is
in the same garden or not. When the leaves were grown they were not waste. A
growing tree does not generate waste. When they fall to the ground they become
waste which is the responsibility of the person whose ground it is. No human
agency plucks them off the tree and deposits them. You are making
unnecessarily heavy weather of this.

--

Roger Hayter