total confused by the cncc website

[langcliffe]

The countryside and rights of way act 2000, which introduced open access land, reduced landowners responsibility for walkers. However landowners are still liable for hazards on their land.

Section 13 of the Countryside Right of Way Act 2000 reduces landowners responsibility for people accessing their land by virtue of the Act. This may, or may not include cavers - that is for a Hight Court to decide. The relevant section is as follows:

"At any time when the right conferred by section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is exercisable in relation to land which is access land for the purposes of Part I of that Act, an occupier of the land owes (subject to subsection (6C) below) no duty by virtue of this section to any person in respect of?

(a) a risk resulting from the existence of any natural feature of the landscape, or any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature, or

(b) a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over, under or through any wall, fence or gate, except by proper use of the gate or of a stile. "

 

[graham]

Well then cant we all just wave our right to sue, unless we are injured on the surface (facing same dangers as walkers) or I guess they dump some scrap on our heads.

Even if you waive your own right to sue, you cannot, on their behalf, waive the right of your next-of-kin to sue should you croak.

 

[graham]

However, no landowner has been successfully sued over a caving accident to my knowledge (the Gaping Gill case was thrown out of court).

Still doesn't prevent them from trying and tying you up for years with legal claims and expense.

 

[Les W]

However, no landowner has been successfully sued over a caving accident to my knowledge (the Gaping Gill case was thrown out of court).

Still doesn't prevent them from trying and tying you up for years with legal claims and expense.

You're right there. Nobody can prevent themselves from being sued. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. The courts will decide if the case is frivolous and generally find accordingly. In the meantime of course there has been much expense and inconvenience on all sides. This is where insurance will come in (hopefully). I'm not sure if the "Occupiers liability acts" place a legal duty on the land owners to insure against any liability, but a prudent land owner will have insurance already to cover his risks against negligence under those acts.

 

[Alex]

Then do pray tell what is the difference between a caver and a walker going onto there land if it is not insurance? Should cavers not be covered under that act anyway, afterall we do not fly to the cave do we?

Also technically in most caves we have lost the right to sue with that 2000 act anyway

(b) a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over, under or through any wall, fence or gate, except by proper use of the gate or of a stile. "

As most caves do go under walls. You may laugth but this sort of legal loop holes have won cases in the past.

 

[Kevlar]

The simplest solution I would use is to not use dates when issuing permits instead allotting a certain amount for example only have 52 for the year therefor no matter what the weather is doing you can go when it suits you (provided it is not in closed season or dates stipulated when no caving is to be done). blah blah blah

Well done Alex  on creating more unnecessary debate and well done to the usually suspects on rising to it. The system we have now should work perfectly well.

The reason your idea is a pile of poop is the potential that all 52 clubs (each armed with the self righteous knowledge that they have a permit) may not talk to each other and then end up at the same cave on the same weekend. 52 x 4 = 208 cavers wandering over the land, only to queue. Ace situation! I'm sure the landowners and cavers would all love that! Even if not all permitted clubs turned up, in some caves just more than 2 groups would cause a problem.

Let's just respect the time and effort (and kindness on behalf of the landowners) that has gone into the current system. It is after all for our benefit.

 

[khakipuce]

Section 13 of the Countryside Right of Way Act 2000 reduces landowners responsibility for people accessing their land by virtue of the Act. This may, or may not include cavers - that is for a Hight Court to decide.
[/qoute]

Section 2.1 says
2 Rights of public in relation to access land

(1) Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation ...

The courts may not see caving as "open-air recreation"

 

[langcliffe]

Section 13 of the Countryside Right of Way Act 2000 reduces landowners responsibility for people accessing their land by virtue of the Act. This may, or may not include cavers - that is for a High Court to decide.

The courts may not see caving as "open-air recreation"

Hence my comment about it being a matter for the High Court to decide. I had this conversation with DEFRA about ten years ago. At first they told me that cavers did not have right of access under the Act, but they were unable to give me a justification for that answer. On further discussion, they said that it was their interpretation and that it was an issue that could only be definitively decided in a High Court.

Personally, I believe that caving is allowed, as it is a (relatively) benign open-air recreational activity which is neither specifically included or excluded, but my opinion means fanny adam in the greater scheme of thing, so it isn't a subject that I pursue in earnest discussions. At the end of day, we will always rely on the good will of many landowners, so I am prepared (mostly) to follow the regionally agreed access agreements until circumstances change.

 

[IanWalker]

Why would any landowner want all this hastle?  For what?  I'm grateful for the goodwill of the majority of the Dales landowners/tenants and for the work the CNCC does in opening up access to sensitive and marginal cases.

 

[JJ]

Further to Lancliffe's comments I have never understood why the CNCC and the BCA have never pursued Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 16 of the CROW act. My understanding is that this allows any landowner of tenant with a lease of 90 years or more to dedicate higher specific access rights under the CROW Act 2000, eg caving.

Not only would this secure caving access it would also lower the landowners liability regarding caving - one of the main reasons of currently cited for restricting access. To my simple mind this would be a win win situation. To my knowledge few landowners know of this opportunity although it has been explained to me on a number of occasions by YDNPA staff.

May be wrong over this but it is certainly my non legal understanding.

 

[Alex]

Yes Kevlar, I am aware that landowners have rights to remove our access if they want but do not and we should be grateful of that. But that is no reason why it is so wrong of me and others to try and suggest ways to improve the system, why should it be so wrong to discuss this? The system does not seem to work “perfect” otherwise there would not be this re-occurring debate? It is just a system currently works. An extreme example of a system/method works could be: Chopping somebody’s arm off cure infection, yes this works but so does antibiotics, which would you choose?

If we do not look for alternatives then anything will be improved. If it turns out there cannot be any improves then fine, but lets at least try! It is afterall in our nature to try and improve our selfs something that this country as a whole seems to have forgotten as we more and more we seem to fall behind, but anyway I digress…

As for my idea earlier of not using dates I have two points to counter yours:
A) 52 was just a number I plucked out of the air, I was not saying there should be any more or less that number is up to the landowner
b) It is very bloody unlikely to have all cavers on the land at once, the odds work out something like 52 x 356 so 1 in 18980 chance of that happening. But even if there were a large number on one day the other days would be quite as a result providing the permit system was stuck to?

P.S. I am grateful for the work CNCC does to give us at least some access but as I said in my opening statement what’s stopping us trying to improve it.
I humbly emplore the CNCC to have a look at the CROW act and to see if we could get our selves recognised.

 

[Glenn]

P.S. I am grateful for the work CNCC does to give us at least some access but as I said in my opening statement what?s stopping us trying to improve it.
I humbly emplore the CNCC to have a look at the CROW act and to see if we could get our selves recognised.

As I have stated elsewhere, the CNCC Access Officer (a volunteer who has given his time and travel freely) has recently concluded a lengthy period of discussion with the landowner, his agents and NE to re-negotiate access to Leck Fell. If you think he could have reached a better conclusion, you are more than welcome to attend the CNCC AGM on March 6th, and stand as Access Officer - you will be greatly welcomed, as quite frankly, it is a shit job to do, not made any easier when he has to explain the blatant pirating to the same land owner.

 

[Andy Sparrow]

This NOT about liability or insurance.  Landowners would control walker numbers if they could but on CROW land they can't.  Landowners control caver numbers because they can - ultimately because we choose to allow ourselves to be controlled.  We could refuse to co-operate with the permit system, choose to apply CROW and assume a right of access - this would cause a huge caver/landowner dispute which could only be settled in court at great expense.  Probably better to leave the staus quo as it stands.

 

[graham]

It's all about perception. If landowners perceive that cavers have rights on their land then they are going to "accidentally" fill in entrances and are certainly not going to allow any new surface digs.

 

[Alex]

I will concede that point about surface digging as digging a hole on there land is a bit different then walking accross it and using an existing hole and therefor should still require special permission.

But what is to stop a farmer "Accidentally" putting barbwire over a style or accidently destroying it for walkers at the moment, surely the same safeguards would apply for us if we were to get caving recognised officially.

 

[graham]

But what is to stop a farmer "Accidentally" putting barbwire over a style or accidently destroying it for walkers at the moment, surely the same safeguards would apply for us if we were to get caving recognised officially.

You don't get out in the countryside much, do you. I've failed to walk down many a "right of way" that's been overgrown for years.

 

[Hughie]

But what is to stop a farmer "Accidentally" putting barbwire over a style or accidently destroying it for walkers at the moment, surely the same safeguards would apply for us if we were to get caving recognised officially.

Usually 'cos there's no good reason to.

Also it's illegal.

 

[ChrisJC]

But what is to stop a farmer "Accidentally" putting barbwire over a style or accidently destroying it for walkers at the moment, surely the same safeguards would apply for us if we were to get caving recognised officially.

You don't get out in the countryside much, do you. I've failed to walk down many a "right of way" that's been overgrown for years.

Sorry, but I do get out into the countryside and try to use rights of way, and it is very very easy to come across a right of way that is obstructed in some way. I can think of many many examples, ranging from ploughed fields to roads build across footpaths with crash barriers and fences obstructing the right of way.

And quite often it is the landowner being belligerent that causes these problems.

Of course, if you stick to popular long distance paths, there's no issue.

Chris.

 

[Hughie]

I can think of many many examples, ranging from ploughed fields to roads build across footpaths with crash barriers and fences obstructing the right of way.

Heavens! Ploughed fields and roads in the countryside?

What ever next! Cows and sheep perhaps?

 

[ChrisJC]

I can think of many many examples, ranging from ploughed fields to roads build across footpaths with crash barriers and fences obstructing the right of way.

Heavens! Ploughed fields and roads in the countryside?

I know, it's ridiculous 

Of course, landowners are supposed to mark ROW's when they plough and sow across them, so numptys like myself can see where to go. 

Chris.