Mud from adjacent field onto our track - responsibilities?

[RogerS]

A farmer has a field that slopes down to our drive. It's recently been ploughed and tilled and with all the rain we've been having, a large amount of mud has flowed down onto our track and what was once a stone drive is now a quagmire.

Does anyone know whether the farmer has any responsibility to dig, say, a catch ditch his side of the drive and then run the water away via a large 128", say, pipe under our track and away?

TIA

 

[henton49er]

A landowner should not allow the uncontrolled disharge of water (whether fresh rainfall or heavily contaminated as in your case) onto anyone-else's land. Having said that if there is a riparian situation (i.e. that there is a ditch/watercourse - even if blocked and not very evident) then the landowner is not allowed to prevent the water from moving downstream to the next landowner. Confusing? Yes, but can be clarified by reviweing maps of recognised watercourses.

The law on rainfall and run-off is complex and not something for the amateur. I suggest that you speak to you local Environment Agency Flood Defence team to establish where you stand. These days they may well charge for their advice.

 

[dickm]

There is an obligation to clean up mud off wheels if it's deposited on a public highway, but not sure what is the position when it's two private individuals concerned. If it's a regular occurrence, it probably counts as a civil nuisance, but if it's a one-off, it would probably be difficult to get any action. There's a lot of flood debris on the roads up here this week, but the roads are so rough anyway, noone seems unduly bothered!
Talk the to guy?

 

[RogerS]

Thanks guys. My own research post-posting seemed to suggest that owners of lower lying land are expected to accept water flowing onto their land from higher ground. Nothing said about mud!

I will speak to him but always like to know where I stand first....especially in his case (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!)

 

[whiskywill]

There are several examples of case law which, though not exactly the same, are similar to your situtation and it would seem that unless the farmer could anticipate that it would cause a problem, he is not liable.

Have a look at Nichols v Marsland 1876 and Rylands v Fletcher 1868.

My list of fees is in the post. :mrgreen:

 

[dickm]

Blimey - do legal precedents last from the middle of the 19th century?

Without knowing exactly where you are in Worcestershire, is it possible that you are in an ESA, where it is likely that Environment Agency would be interested in the erosion that this guy is suffering/allowing. And if he is in receipt of any Rural Stewardship payments, the Rural Payments Agency should be interested, as he doesn't sound to be exercising responsible stewardship of the soil, which is one of the requirements of the scheme now.
(pm me if you want a bit more detail)

 

[whiskywill]

Blimey - do legal precedents last from the middle of the 19th century?

Yes. I don't think there is any time limit as there is case law still referred to from the 16th Century.

 

[dickm]

there is case law still referred to from the 16th Century.

referring to the wearing of swords in public places? Or with the detection of witches?

(Sorry, but after wasting several days in a stuffy jury room, my view of the law/legal profession is not very positive)

 

[riclepp]

Blimey - do legal precedents last from the middle of the 19th century?

Yes. I don't think there is any time limit as there is case law still referred to from the 16th Century.

Agreed, they do still set a precedent and they can either be inacted into Statutory Law, or struck of the Statuate Books, i.e. recent removal of the law, wherebys every man and boy in England must practice the use of the longbow for two hours every day. Obsecure law, but it was in the books and it stays there until it is brought up and either re-enacted or removed. As in the case of precendent, it will always be borught up. There are so many percedent case law it is a mindfield.

Happy Days

 

[RogerS]

....the law, wherebys every man and boy in England must practice the use of the longbow for two hours every day. ....

Indeed. So much quieter 'tapping' the odd rambler than the shotgun :lol:

 

[adidat]

opppss careful you used the G word prepare for the trolls!

adidat