Weeds on my land...legal warning & effect on valuation

[chiefmegawatty]

Here is a plot plan of the site: http://www.perfectplot.co.uk/plan.asp?photo=plans/devizes.gif&location=85

 

The plots in field 13 are the ones with full planning permission for a nursing home.

My plot is 15E.

[BazzaS]

IMO, many threats of prison are unwarranted. It was requoted for your benefit since you asked. The operative word being "can"

 

"Can", if the weeds were planted or caused by the OP, which as the OP didn't becomes "won't" !

 

So again, if there is an Act (with its relevant section) where the OP can go to prison for what he has or hasn't done (rather than "could go to prison under this section except I'm not suggesting he has actually done the relevant act") then post it. Otherwise you might as well be posting "OP can go to prison for murder"! ; True, but only if they are convicted of murder which is unlikely as we have no reason to believe they have murdered anyone!

 

Gladwish might be using threats of prisons sentences to apply unwarranted pressure on people to pay. There is no need for you to give those threats legitimacy by repeating them if they don't apply.

[Weed Expert]

Here is a plot plan of the site: http://www.perfectplot.co.uk/plan.asp?photo=plans/devizes.gif&location=85

 

The plots in field 13 are the ones with full planning permission for a nursing home.

My plot is 15E.

 

Right. It seems to me that you are being scammed. The guidance only applies to ragwort. Orders to control are only put in place where you are within 100 metres of grazing land. Assuming that the other plots aren't grazed, and if they are all plots bought for investment they would not be. Then you are outside distance where you could be required to control ragwort let alone any other weed species. It seems to be a nice little earner for the business concerned. Demand evidence of correspondence from DEFRA.

[p3t3r]

"Can", if the weeds were planted or caused by the OP, which as the OP didn't becomes "won't" !

 

So again, if there is an Act (with its relevant section) where the OP can go to prison for what he has or hasn't done (rather than "could go to prison under this section except I'm not suggesting he has actually done the relevant act") then post it. Details / link provided earlier in thread. Again, 'can' go to prison. You imply that I am suggesting that the OP will go to prison for what he has or hasn't done. That is totally incorrect. Please re-read my post. Otherwise you might as well be posting "OP can go to prison for murder"! ; True, but only if they are convicted of murder which is unlikely as we have no reason to believe they have murdered anyone!

This thread is about "weeds and prison" and not murder. I merely provided a link showing people can go to prison - again, i reiterate that "can" is the operative word.

 

Gladwish might be using threats of prisons sentences to apply unwarranted pressure on people to pay.

Might be, yes. Although, anyone reading the link given in post 2 would notice the word "can". Using your analogy of 'can go to prison for murder', I can use the same analogy of I can eat ragwort. I will not eat it, but I can eat it.

 

There is no need for you to give those threats legitimacy by repeating them if they don't apply.

You asked me to repeat / state legislation which I gave earlier, now you accuse me of repeating / answering your question? lol

I don't see how I am giving any legitimacy to the alleged threats. Merely pointing the OP and others to the relevant law in which someone "CAN" not "WILL"

 

I will say again "can" - operative word! My first post was in relation to Japanese Knotweed and my second post was in relation to answering someones question about the legislation used concerning prison and weeds. I have never said WILL, I have said CAN - something which is reflected within the links already provided above.

 

I would like to think it is very unlikely that a person would go to prison for not clearing this weed, especially as there seems to be conflicting information saying that ragowort is protected and is an offence to uproot it (again, link already supplied above in relation to that)

[p3t3r]

Right. It seems to me that you are being scammed. The guidance only applies to ragwort. Orders to control are only put in place where you are within 100 metres of grazing land. Assuming that the other plots aren't grazed, and if they are all plots bought for investment they would not be. Then you are outside distance where you could be required to control ragwort let alone any other weed species. It seems to be a nice little earner for the business concerned. Demand evidence of correspondence from DEFRA.

 

Nice! It does seem strange that the land company are trying to get their clients to pay for weeding.. Someone else pointed out that the company contacting its clients also seems strange when the clients details are held on land registry. I would have thought that any authority would use land registry details to contact the legal owner and not the company that has sold the land.

[Weed Expert]

I will say again "can" - operative word! My first post was in relation to Japanese Knotweed and my second post was in relation to answering someones question about the legislation used concerning prison and weeds. I have never said WILL, I have said CAN - something which is reflected within the links already provided above.

 

I would like to think it is very unlikely that a person would go to prison for not clearing this weed, especially as there seems to be conflicting information saying that ragowort is protected and is an offence to uproot it (again, link already supplied above in relation to that)

 

It is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to uproot any wild plant (including ragwort)without permission from the landowner or occupier.

There are a few kinds of officials to whom this does not apply, and the full details are here on this link.

 

http://www.ragwortfacts.com/ragwort-uproot.html

[BazzaS]

I would like to think it is very unlikely that a person would go to prison for not clearing this weed, especially as there seems to be conflicting information saying that ragowort is protected and is an offence to uproot it (again, link already supplied above in relation to that)

 

Again, basing your reply on what the OP has or hasn't done, where can the OP go to prison for not clearing the weed , as you "think it is very unlikely that a person would go to prison for not clearing this weed"

Where I suggest it is not just unlikely, but impossible!

 

Come clean, admit you read the statute wrong (or didn't read it?) and stop trying to erroneously scare the OP / legitimise the false threat of prison.

[dx100uk]

nice little earner there ...nasty people

[p3t3r]

hi expert! i find it strange that law implies that ragwort should be eliminated and another law states it can not be uprooted since it is protected, but i think you already explained that in your previous post - should only be eliminated if near cattle / animals.

 

trying to gain a basic understanding of law has been sending me round in circles the last few weeks lol. I am more interested in botany / plants - positive and negative effects on humans, but not so interested in to perform experiment on myself such as a liverpool vet who damaged his liver whilst testing ragwort effect on body.

 

anyway, thanks, youve given good advice to OP and to others reading the thread.

[Weed Expert]

Nice! It does seem strange that the land company are trying to get their clients to pay for weeding.. Someone else pointed out that the company contacting its clients also seems strange when the clients details are held on land registry. I would have thought that any authority would use land registry details to contact the legal owner and not the company that has sold the land.

 

 

Absolutely! My advice to the OP is not to demand that the company prove their claims before having anything to do with paying anything to anyone or doing any weed control, spraying etc. It seems to be rather a peculiar thing that is going on.

Just to explain. I took a look at the map I converted the acreage into square metres and I estimated it to be 5 times as long as it is wide. This gives a round figure of 96 metres long. If you use that ( and I accept it isn't to scale) it is very obvious is it well within 100 metres of the edge of the overall site. If the OP has the original maps it should be very easy to prove this.

[p3t3r]

Again, basing your reply on what the OP has or hasn't done, where can the OP go to prison for not clearing the weed , as you "think it is very unlikely that a person would go to prison for not clearing this weed"

Where I suggest it is not just unlikely, but impossible!

Wrong. Clearly possible - as shown in earlier link quoting the relevant law.

I PRESUME that prison is only possible in this instance if the land owner had a formal notice from the authority saying they must clean the land and then refusing the notice.

 

Come clean, admit you read the statute wrong (or didn't read it?)

I did not read it and have no intention of reading it. OP can read for themselves. I merely provided a link showing that the OP "CAN" go to prison. That was not done in an effort to legitamise the land company claim in which you claim.

 

and stop trying to erroneously scare the OP /

I apologise that you feel that I am trying to scare the OP, however, that is not the case. Again, I just pointed out to legislation. After that, you are continually implying that I am repeating myself, but I repeated myself to answer your question.

 

legitimise the false threat of prison.

 

I have tried to help the OP, it is only you who have criticised that I am supposedly trying to backup the land selling company. It would seem that our conversation will go endlessly round and round and serve no purpose other than to you repeatedly accuse me of something, to which I deny.

 

OP has been given good advice by other people. If I constantly defend your accusations against me then it will serve no other purpose than to detract from the good advice already provided here by others. Nothing more I can add to this thread.

[BazzaS]

I PRESUME that prison is only possible in this instance if the land owner had a formal notice from the authority saying they must clean the land and then refusing the notice.

 

You still presume wrong, even after the correct situation had been pointed out to you. Failing to act as noted above is covered by S14(2), which can't attract a prison sentence, as previously noted.

 

Prison is only possible if the OP "plants or causes to grow" the (schedule listed) weed.

You say you aren't accusing them of that therefore:

Your "can go to prison" isn't applicable.

 

You can't have it both ways:

Either they can't go to prison if they didn't "plant or cause to grow" the weed, even if they fail to clear it, OR

they can go to prison but must have "planted the weed" or "caused it to grow".

 

This is why your suggestion might unreasonable scare the OP and why it adds to the false threat of prison.

You may not intend it to support the company's threat ... But it does, wrongly.

[chiefmegawatty]

Right. It seems to me that you are being scammed. The guidance only applies to ragwort. Orders to control are only put in place where you are within 100 metres of grazing land. Assuming that the other plots aren't grazed, and if they are all plots bought for investment they would not be. Then you are outside distance where you could be required to control ragwort let alone any other weed species. It seems to be a nice little earner for the business concerned. Demand evidence of correspondence from DEFRA.

 

OK thanks for that information. I will make enquiries next week.

None of the other plots are grazed and neither any of the surrounding land.

The site has existing build on three sides. All the plots were bought for investment.

The site was once an Ostrich farm and there are still signs stating that Ostriches are

dangerous.

The original letter sent to Gladwish from Natural England states that they have received a complaint regarding weeds but doesn't mention the source of the complaint.

The letter goes on to say if action isn't taken they will take steps to initiate formal enforcement action under The Weeds Act. This will involve a visit by a member of the Rural Payments Agency Inspectorate, acting on Defr'a behalf to investigate the complaint further. If necessary the inspector has the authority to serve an enforcement notice requiring action to clear the weeds.

 

The letter seems to be threatening Gladwish rather than the plot owners which I find

strange.

[p3t3r]

You still presume wrong, even after the correct situation had been pointed out to you. Failing to act as noted above is covered by S14(2), which can't attract a prison sentence, as previously noted.

 

Prison is only possible if the OP "plants or causes to grow" the (schedule listed) weed.

You say you aren't accusing them of that therefore:

Your "can go to prison" isn't applicable.

 

You can't have it both ways:

Either they can't go to prison if they didn't "plant or cause to grow" the weed, even if they fail to clear it, OR

they can go to prison but must have "planted the weed" or "caused it to grow".

 

This is why your suggestion might unreasonable scare the OP and why it adds to the false threat of prison.

You may not intend it to support the company's threat ... But it does, wrongly.

 

I pointed out an article which quoted law showing a person CAN go to prison. That is all I did. It is not supporting the threat issued by the company.

It is just pointing out the relevant law since someone asked for it. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. I have already given my opinion to you on several occasions whilst defending myself against your accusations. There is not much point in endlessly carrying on this conversation.

[Guest]

guys

[sueonmull]

Legal aspects and landowner responsibilities with respect to ragwort can be found on page 2 of this document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69264/pb9840-cop-ragwort.pdf

Essentially it is the occupier of the land that is responsible for controlling any injurious weeds growing on it though, as has been pointed out, it is only when the occupier fails to comply with a notice that an actual offence is committed. The occupier may or may not be the landowner and whoever made the original complaint may consider Gladwish Land Sales to be the occupier.

[nicklea]

Yes that is the company from which I bought the land.

My plot is 0.46 Acre.

Gladwish said that they would pay a contractor to completely de-weed the whole of the 28 Acre site and then charge each plot owner a fee to cover the cost. I agree that it seems strange that Gladwish are involved despite all the plots being sold to private owners.

Looking at the paperwork I received from Gladwish, the original complaint regarding the Weeds Act was sent to them from Natural England in Reading, Berks. Strange how they didn't write to each individual plot owner as each plot owners details are held at the Land Registry and easily available.

 

 

 

First of all, just a quick little question. Your name and current address is held with the Land Registry as being the owner of that plot?

 

If that is the case then, at the moment, you have nothing to be worried about. If you read the relevant Act then there are strict rules about how notice must be given. It is similar to a lot of landlord and tenant legislation in that notices must be delivered personally or by recorded delivery or actually affixing it to some conspicuous object on your land. This is the relevant section from the Act, it was linked to above:-

 

6 Service of notices.

 

(1) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served on any person shall be duly served if it is delivered to him, or left at his proper address, or sent to him by post in a registered letter.

 

(2) Any such notice required or authorised to be served on an incorporated company or body shall be duly served if served on the secretary or clerk of the company or body.

 

(3) For the purposes of this section and of section twenty-six of the Interpretation Act, 1889, the proper address of any person on whom any such notice is to be served shall, in the case of the secretary or clerk of any incorporated company or body, be that of the registered or principal office of the company or body, and in any other case be the last known address of the person in question.

 

(4) Where any such notice is to be served on a person as being the person having any interest in land, and it is not practicable after reasonable enquiry to ascertain his name or address, the notice may be served by addressing it to him by the description of the person having that interest in the land (naming it), and delivering the notice to some responsible person on the land or by affixing it, or a copy of it, to some conspicuous object on the land.

 

(5) Where any such notice is to be served on a tenant a copy thereof shall be served on the landlord.

 

(6) Where any such notice is to be served on any person as being the owner of land and the land belongs to an ecclesiastical benefice, a copy thereof shall be served on the Church Commissioners.

 

 

I would suggest that it is very unlikely that they have attached a copy of the notice to a conspicuous object on your land - but you might want to check this.

 

However, if you contact DEFRA about this you are acknowledging service and so cannot use this as a defence.

 

Personally, I would check myself that no notices had been posted up on my bit of land and then just have no further communication with this Gladwish company.

 

I would suggest that you might also wish to talk to a solicitor that specialises in agricultural or farming law - or in Landlord and Tenant as the requirements over giving notice are very similar.

 

Hope this helps

[p3t3r]

nicklea nice advice... just wanted to add to that - maybe the OP should consider removing information that personally identifies him from earlier in thread, such as his plot number.

[chiefmegawatty]

First of all, just a quick little question. Your name and current address is held with the Land Registry as being the owner of that plot?

 

If that is the case then, at the moment, you have nothing to be worried about. If you read the relevant Act then there are strict rules about how notice must be given. It is similar to a lot of landlord and tenant legislation in that notices must be delivered personally or by recorded delivery or actually affixing it to some conspicuous object on your land. This is the relevant section from the Act, it was linked to above:-

 

 

 

 

I would suggest that it is very unlikely that they have attached a copy of the notice to a conspicuous object on your land - but you might want to check this.

 

However, if you contact DEFRA about this you are acknowledging service and so cannot use this as a defence.

 

Personally, I would check myself that no notices had been posted up on my bit of land and then just have no further communication with this Gladwish company.

 

I would suggest that you might also wish to talk to a solicitor that specialises in agricultural or farming law - or in Landlord and Tenant as the requirements over giving notice are very similar.

 

Hope this helps

 

My name and current address are on the title deeds at the land registry.

I also have a copy of the title deeds here.

Thank you for your good help and advice.

[Weed Expert]

OK thanks for that information. I will make enquiries next week.

None of the other plots are grazed and neither any of the surrounding land.

The site has existing build on three sides. All the plots were bought for investment.

The site was once an Ostrich farm and there are still signs stating that Ostriches are

dangerous.

The original letter sent to Gladwish from Natural England states that they have received a complaint regarding weeds but doesn't mention the source of the complaint.

The letter goes on to say if action isn't taken they will take steps to initiate formal enforcement action under The Weeds Act. This will involve a visit by a member of the Rural Payments Agency Inspectorate, acting on Defr'a behalf to investigate the complaint further. If necessary the inspector has the authority to serve an enforcement notice requiring action to clear the weeds.

 

The letter seems to be threatening Gladwish rather than the plot owners which I find

strange.

 

Ah so you do have something from Defra in writing? I thought you didn;t and it was just Gladwish trying to get money for control of weeds from you. I'd appreciate you sending a personal message with an email address.

 

I have just tried to get one to you but there is a silly limit of 30 posts before I can send one.

Since I am a specialist who stumbled across this posting on a peculiar subject I am never likely to make that limit.

Yet I can really help best only in a private manner off the public forum.

[chiefmegawatty]

Ah so you do have something from Defra in writing? I thought you didn;t and it was just Gladwish trying to get money for control of weeds from you. I'd appreciate you sending a personal message with an email address.

 

I have just tried to get one to you but there is a silly limit of 30 posts before I can send one.

Since I am a specialist who stumbled across this posting on a peculiar subject I am never likely to make that limit.

Yet I can really help best only in a private manner off the public forum.

 

The copy of the letter sent to Gladwish was from Natural England, not from Defra.

I have sent you a private message giving you my email address.

[caro]

Ah so you do have something from Defra in writing? I thought you didn;t and it was just Gladwish trying to get money for control of weeds from you. I'd appreciate you sending a personal message with an email address.

 

I have just tried to get one to you but there is a silly limit of 30 posts before I can send one.

Since I am a specialist who stumbled across this posting on a peculiar subject I am never likely to make that limit.

Yet I can really help best only in a private manner off the public forum.

 

If you have advice please post it on the thread for all to see as per site rules specifically 3.5d.

[Guest]

Ah so you do have something from Defra in writing? I thought you didn;t and it was just Gladwish trying to get money for control of weeds from you. I'd appreciate you sending a personal message with an email address.

 

I have just tried to get one to you but there is a silly limit of 30 posts before I can send one.

Since I am a specialist who stumbled across this posting on a peculiar subject I am never likely to make that limit.

Yet I can really help best only in a private manner off the public forum.

 

 

why not post yr advice on thread like everyone else, whats so special that needs to be pm/email address? ?

[nicklea]

If you have advice please post it on the thread for all to see as per site rules.

 

I just reported the post about 5 seconds ago and already somebody from the site team replies - wow.

 

Although, realistically, it looks as though me reporting it must have crossed with caro's post

[Conniff]

I just reported the post about 5 seconds ago and already somebody from the site team replies - wow.

 

Although, realistically, it looks as though me reporting it must have crossed with caro's post

 

 

Not crossed, Caro takes her tea breaks sitting in front of the letter box ready and waiting.