Can the council cut down a tree I plant on common land? This has been inspired by a previous question I have asked, but has not been answered. Please note that I have not actually planted any trees, this is just a scenario. :) Bob owns a house with a garden in front of the house. In front of Bob's garden is a patch of public land (common land), which is covered in grass. Bob plants a tree on the common ground (knowningly). Bob's local borough council notice that he has planted a tree on the common ground, which is not being used by the council, member's of the public, or a business. Can the council cut down/remove the tree?
Can the council cut down a tree I plant on common land? Yes. When you plant a tree on common land, you are making a donation to the commons and the tree is no longer yours. The fact that it is common land resolves the question. This is really obvious in the fact pattern where you plant a tree in middle of Hyde Park, and is less obvious, but still true, in the fact pattern in the question. But, be aware that lots of land that is commonly believed to be common land (particularly in the fact pattern in the question), is in fact, private land subject to an easement in favor of the public. There is a fair amount of micro-variation in the common ownership v. private land with easement norm between different neighborhoods in the same municipality, that flows largely from customary practice at the time that particular neighborhoods were developed and deeded (which can span more than a thousand years in some U.K. cities), which has gone back and forth over time. Where there is private land subject to a public easement, a property owner would retain ownership of the land and the tree, subject only to limitations associated with the easement. But, those limitations might very well authorize the Council to remove or cut down the tree to further the purpose of the easement (e.g. if it was blocking a sidewalk with its growth, or threatened utilities for which the easement was created). Of course, in some circumstance, the Council can enforce general regulatory laws that authorize cutting down trees on private land (e.g. tree infected with something that could spread to all trees of that type in the area). Also, it is possible that some public land by be under the control of an entity other than a Council, like a neighborhood association, or another governmental entity (e.g. in the case of a verge along family housing on a military base, or in the case of rental properties on land derived from by a university's land, or in housing associated with a royal palace). In those cases, somebody with responsibility for the land could cut down the tree, but not the local Council.
Is it legal to trespass the fence (with little passage in it) with no signs, if there's no buildings behind it (for example, construction site)? As usual, it depends, but probably not. By entering the property you would probably commit Hausfriedensbruch (trespass). According to German law, Hausfriedensbruch applies not only to a building, but any &quot;enclosed property&quot; (&quot;befriedetes Besitztum&quot;). So in this case the question is whether the site qualifies as a &quot;befriedetes Besitztum&quot; in the legal sense. There is no complete list of criteria for that, but the general rule is that the property is physically protected from access. For example, a fenced-in lawn would count (even if the fence is easy to step over), while a temporary barrier (such as a plastic chain) in an otherwise public passage would not. There is no requirement for there to be a building, thus it does not matter that the construction site is empty. So in your case, you would likely commit Hausfriedensbruch by entering the property, unless the passage is obviously intende to allow access to anyone (and is not just an accidental opening). The penalty for Hausfriedensbruch is up to one year of prison (though in many cases you'll probably get away with a fine).
The location of your residence entrance is irrelevant for the law, what matters most is your "street address", i.e. mailing address. That is the address (therefore city) that you use for voter registration, and basically how you identify "where I live". If you lives 5 miles out in the country in an unincorporated area, you'd still use Needles (e.g.) as you mailing address: but you would not be able to vote for a mayor of Needles, just based on your mailing address. Both municipalities might claim jurisdiction based on the physical location of the property, especially for matters of building code. It should not be possible for both municipalities to tax the full value of your property, but they could split the assessment proportionally. The cities themselves are not collecting the tax, the county is (though property straddling a county line raises an interesting question).
(Converting comment into an answer) You could sue for criminal damage, if any actual damage is caused during the removal of those notices - however, that will cost you an initial outlay in solicitors fees and court costs and isn't guaranteed to have a successful outcome. You could also just take this as a learnable event and not park in other peoples spots? The owner of the parking spot may have the legal right to have your car removed at your expense, and/or issue you with a penalty charge if suitable notices have been posted, so you might consider yourself to have got off lightly here perhaps?
You should contact your local London borough if you wish to lodge a complaint (and you never know, you might get a different result this time). Depending on the nature of work being carried out, and the level of noise, this may fall within either s.60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 or possibly under Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if it is deemed a Statutory Nuisance Taking the Royal Borough of Greenwich as an example, they say here: General construction work should be restricted to the following hours: Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm Saturdays 8am to 1pm Noisy work is prohibited on Sundays and bank holidays Therefore it seems the 8am start is allowed. As for the noise levels, independent readings will be required to see if your figure of 80db is accurate but if it is, and continuing with Greenwich as an example, it may be over the permitted levels stated at 6.3 of Greenwich's Code of Practice - assuming that the builders fall within the definition of conducting &quot;major construction and civil engineering works&quot;. I have not checked many other boroughs, but the above is consistent with those that I have.
No When I go into my grocery store, I can use the lettuce if I pay for it. The grocer does not explicitly state that I can't use the lettuce if I don't pay for it but that doesn't mean I can. Replace &quot;lettuce&quot; with &quot;software&quot; (or any other property you don't own) and you have the same situation.
Generally, if someone asks you to leave their property you have to leave*. Just because a place is owned by the public, doesn't mean anyone can go there any time they wish. Military bases, firehouses, and jails are owned by the public, but many of these have limited access to the public. It may be open to the general public, but that does not mean restrictions cannot be put into place, either on times, or activities, or individuals. For example, public parks often have time and activity restrictions; schools have the power to restrict individuals from their premises, either specifically or by general category. As a general point of law, the owner of any property, or their agent, can order anyone without the right to stay (e.g. not a co-owner or tenant), and that person must depart, otherwise that person is tresspassing. The Social Service Administrator is almost certainly an agent of the controlling entity that owns the property. Thus their demand that you leave the premises is enforceable, unless you have a non-revokable right to be in that space. *As user Justaguy points out there are some exceptions. Most notably, police can some times enter a property uninvited or against the owner's wishes (such as under emergency circumstances or with a warrant).
If we cut through all the entertaining colour commentary around Bob's experience then all that happened is TfL refused him permission to carry a specific item and according to the TfL Conditions of Carriage: 9.2 Staff can refuse permission for you to take any item onto our services. For example, you may be prevented from taking a bicycle on DLR services during the London Marathon. So the rules around the times when non-folding bikes are permitted on the Overground not withstanding there's a catch-all rule which allows them to refuse specific items on specific occasions for whatever reason they want. What remedies does Bob have available for his wasted time, his refusal of carriage, the supervisor's concealment of his identity, general rude treatment, Realistically - none. The refusal may be harsh - but there's plenty of room in the conditions of carriage to allow it. A supervisor concealing his identity may be annoying but it's not illegal, nor is being rude. the BTP's shockingly insulting accusation of his &quot;wasting police time&quot; by simply trying to explain the situation to reason with them upon their arrival, either against TfL, or against BTP? Probably nothing doing here either - the BTP aren't for what Bob's trying to use them for. I doubt they'd actually pursue Bob for wasting police time unless he makes a habit of doing it, but they've got a point. They're not the complaints department for TfL! It's like calling the police because McDonalds won't serve you at the drive through.