Someone has asked for help in moving an item between two locations, on a local forum.
Apparently there were a couple of offers to do it for £10, which then came to nothing.
I offered to do it for free, but then the issue of insurance was raised
(in a somewhat confusing fashion).
I am assuming that if you offer to move, say, a small chest of drawers in
the back of your estate car then you are expected to exercise reasonable care, but you would not be liable for any accidental damage such as a scratch.
This is on the principle that no contract exists because there has not
been an offer and the receipt of a consideration, which I understand is necessary for a contract to exist.
This does raise the question about the "do it for a tenner" brigade. Presumably they should be insured to cover any risks to the cargo, having accepted some form of liability.
This is all fairly trivial in the great scheme of things, and I assume
that an aggrieved party would have to go to court to get any compensation, but this did make me (over)think what liabilities are involved in shifting something for a friend or acquaintance.
My current view is if the person wants an object transported at no risk to themselves then they should engage a professional carrier with terms and conditions and insurance.
However I assume many people have moved things on behalf of others and
wonder how exposed they might be to a claim:
(1) if they did it for free
(2) if they accepted payment
(2a) If that payment was to cover fuel costs only.
I am assuming that if you offer to move, say, a small chest of drawers in
the back of your estate car then you are expected to exercise reasonable care, but you would not be liable for any accidental damage such as a scratch.
My first thought would be to check whether the vehicle has the right insurance. It normally needs to have business use insurance to be able
to carry goods, even without charge. I have that on my car, for my own business, but it would still not cover me to carry goods for hire or
reward, which needs to be specifically insured.
On 06/04/2024 15:01, Colin Bignell wrote:
My first thought would be to check whether the vehicle has the right
insurance. It normally needs to have business use insurance to be able
to carry goods, even without charge. I have that on my car, for my own
business, but it would still not cover me to carry goods for hire or
reward, which needs to be specifically insured.
Are "goods" defined as things that you have sold/hoping to sell?
Supposing that I sell my flower vase on ebay, and I agree to deliver it
to a local buyer. I shove it in the boot, and drive off. Am I driving uninsured? (I have an SDP insurance.)
On 06/04/2024 15:01, Colin Bignell wrote:
My first thought would be to check whether the vehicle has the right
insurance. It normally needs to have business use insurance to be able
to carry goods, even without charge. I have that on my car, for my own
business, but it would still not cover me to carry goods for hire or
reward, which needs to be specifically insured.
Are "goods" defined as things that you have sold/hoping to sell?
Supposing that I sell my flower vase on ebay, and I agree to deliver it
to a local buyer. I shove it in the boot, and drive off. Am I driving uninsured? (I have an SDP insurance.)
On 06/04/2024 14:35, David wrote:
Someone has asked for help in moving an item between two locations, on
a local forum.
Apparently there were a couple of offers to do it for £10, which then
came to nothing.
I offered to do it for free, but then the issue of insurance was raised
(in a somewhat confusing fashion).
I am assuming that if you offer to move, say, a small chest of drawers
in the back of your estate car then you are expected to exercise
reasonable care, but you would not be liable for any accidental damage
such as a scratch.
This is on the principle that no contract exists because there has not
been an offer and the receipt of a consideration, which I understand is
necessary for a contract to exist.
This does raise the question about the "do it for a tenner" brigade.
Presumably they should be insured to cover any risks to the cargo,
having accepted some form of liability.
This is all fairly trivial in the great scheme of things, and I assume
that an aggrieved party would have to go to court to get any
compensation, but this did make me (over)think what liabilities are
involved in shifting something for a friend or acquaintance.
My current view is if the person wants an object transported at no risk
to themselves then they should engage a professional carrier with terms
and conditions and insurance.
However I assume many people have moved things on behalf of others and
wonder how exposed they might be to a claim:
(1) if they did it for free (2) if they accepted payment (2a) If that
payment was to cover fuel costs only.
My first thought would be to check whether the vehicle has the right insurance. It normally needs to have business use insurance to be able
to carry goods, even without charge. I have that on my car, for my own business, but it would still not cover me to carry goods for hire or
reward, which needs to be specifically insured.
That is quite separate from any insurance for damage to the goods. The
value of cover provided by couriers is quite low, so, many years ago, I
used to get higher insurance on items by buying booklets of slips, each
of which was worth a fixed insured value. The slips were to be torn out,
to the total value required and, IIRC, fixed to the invoice sent to the customer, who could then use them to claim if there was any damage.
On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:01:55 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/04/2024 14:35, David wrote:
Someone has asked for help in moving an item between two locations, on
a local forum.
Apparently there were a couple of offers to do it for £10, which then
came to nothing.
I offered to do it for free, but then the issue of insurance was raised
(in a somewhat confusing fashion).
I am assuming that if you offer to move, say, a small chest of drawers
in the back of your estate car then you are expected to exercise
reasonable care, but you would not be liable for any accidental damage
such as a scratch.
This is on the principle that no contract exists because there has not
been an offer and the receipt of a consideration, which I understand is
necessary for a contract to exist.
This does raise the question about the "do it for a tenner" brigade.
Presumably they should be insured to cover any risks to the cargo,
having accepted some form of liability.
This is all fairly trivial in the great scheme of things, and I assume
that an aggrieved party would have to go to court to get any
compensation, but this did make me (over)think what liabilities are
involved in shifting something for a friend or acquaintance.
My current view is if the person wants an object transported at no risk
to themselves then they should engage a professional carrier with terms
and conditions and insurance.
However I assume many people have moved things on behalf of others and
wonder how exposed they might be to a claim:
(1) if they did it for free (2) if they accepted payment (2a) If that
payment was to cover fuel costs only.
My first thought would be to check whether the vehicle has the right
insurance. It normally needs to have business use insurance to be able
to carry goods, even without charge. I have that on my car, for my own
business, but it would still not cover me to carry goods for hire or
reward, which needs to be specifically insured.
That is quite separate from any insurance for damage to the goods. The
value of cover provided by couriers is quite low, so, many years ago, I
used to get higher insurance on items by buying booklets of slips, each
of which was worth a fixed insured value. The slips were to be torn out,
to the total value required and, IIRC, fixed to the invoice sent to the
customer, who could then use them to claim if there was any damage.
"It normally needs to have business use insurance to be able to carry
goods, even without charge."
I assume this is for the case where money is charged?
Which would (to my mind) make it a business transaction.
Which would in turn require the correct insurance, and also business insurance covering whatever is carried.
If the lady across the road asks you to take a chest of drawers to her daughter a couple of miles away then I would assume that this fell within "social, domestic and pleasure" with an emphasis on the social.
I struggle to see how moving something free of charge could count as
business use.
For example taking a bin bag full of garden waste to the tip in your
little trailer for a friend/neighbour, along with your own garden waste.
How about taking a friend of your daughter out to the start of a hike with
a rucksack in the back, and/or a tent?
What about picking up a hitch hiker?
Not done much now but it used to be a thing decades back when it was still relatively safe.
Kids used to do this to and from University.
Surely this doesn't require business insurance?
If the lady across the road asks you to take a chest of drawers to her
daughter a couple of miles away then I would assume that this fell within
"social, domestic and pleasure" with an emphasis on the social.
Social means things like visiting friends and family, rather than moving furniture for others.
On 08/04/2024 16:56, Colin Bignell wrote:
If the lady across the road asks you to take a chest of drawers to her
daughter a couple of miles away then I would assume that this fell
within
"social, domestic and pleasure" with an emphasis on the social.
Social means things like visiting friends and family, rather than
moving furniture for others.
Maybe, it's under pleasure? After all, it's pleasing to help your
neighbour.
I assume there must be much case law on this, because my (Aviva) policy doesn't bother to explain in any way what SD&P means.
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation". I
expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
But the
dictionary definition of the word includes "any activity on which time
is spent by a person". So, I can't drive to the beach?
On 07/04/2024 13:19, David wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:01:55 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/04/2024 14:35, David wrote:
Someone has asked for help in moving an item between two locations, on >>>> a local forum.
Apparently there were a couple of offers to do it for £10, which then >>>> came to nothing.
I offered to do it for free, but then the issue of insurance was raised >>>> (in a somewhat confusing fashion).
I am assuming that if you offer to move, say, a small chest of drawers >>>> in the back of your estate car then you are expected to exercise
reasonable care, but you would not be liable for any accidental damage >>>> such as a scratch.
This is on the principle that no contract exists because there has not >>>> been an offer and the receipt of a consideration, which I understand is >>>> necessary for a contract to exist.
This does raise the question about the "do it for a tenner" brigade.
Presumably they should be insured to cover any risks to the cargo,
having accepted some form of liability.
This is all fairly trivial in the great scheme of things, and I assume >>>> that an aggrieved party would have to go to court to get any
compensation, but this did make me (over)think what liabilities are
involved in shifting something for a friend or acquaintance.
My current view is if the person wants an object transported at no risk >>>> to themselves then they should engage a professional carrier with terms >>>> and conditions and insurance.
However I assume many people have moved things on behalf of others and >>>> wonder how exposed they might be to a claim:
(1) if they did it for free (2) if they accepted payment (2a) If that
payment was to cover fuel costs only.
My first thought would be to check whether the vehicle has the right
insurance. It normally needs to have business use insurance to be able
to carry goods, even without charge. I have that on my car, for my own
business, but it would still not cover me to carry goods for hire or
reward, which needs to be specifically insured.
That is quite separate from any insurance for damage to the goods. The
value of cover provided by couriers is quite low, so, many years ago, I
used to get higher insurance on items by buying booklets of slips, each
of which was worth a fixed insured value. The slips were to be torn out, >>> to the total value required and, IIRC, fixed to the invoice sent to the
customer, who could then use them to claim if there was any damage.
"It normally needs to have business use insurance to be able to carry
goods, even without charge."
I assume this is for the case where money is charged?
That is not a safe assumption to make. I needed business use on my
estate car to carry goods between different parts of my own business,
even though no money was exchanged and they were on the same industrial estate.
Which would (to my mind) make it a business transaction.
Which would in turn require the correct insurance, and also business
insurance covering whatever is carried.
If the lady across the road asks you to take a chest of drawers to her
daughter a couple of miles away then I would assume that this fell within
"social, domestic and pleasure" with an emphasis on the social.
Social means things like visiting friends and family, rather than moving furniture for others.
I struggle to see how moving something free of charge could count as
business use.
It is not so much that it is a business use, as that it may not be
covered by SD&P. As I said, I am not an expert on insurance, but I do
know that people can be caught out by what their insurance does not
cover, so it is worth checking the policy and, if you have any doubt at
all, asking your insurer.
Insurers do vary a lot in what they cover. For example SD&P from one
insure may not include commuting, while it may from another (SD&P+C),
but only to one place of work. If you are then asked to drive to a
different office or factory of the same business, you may not be covered
if you only have SD&P+C and not business insurance.
For example taking a bin bag full of garden waste to the tip in your
little trailer for a friend/neighbour, along with your own garden waste.
Probably better to claim it was all yours, if involved in an accident.
snip
<snip>
That is not a safe assumption to make. I needed business use on my
estate car to carry goods between different parts of my own business,
even though no money was exchanged and they were on the same industrial
estate.
<snip>
That is obviously business use, as you clearly state, so I am not sure
what your point is here.
What I am trying to discuss is the point at which SD&P could (perhaps inadvertently) become business use.
That is not a safe assumption to make. I needed business use on my
estate car to carry goods between different parts of my own business,
even though no money was exchanged and they were on the same industrial estate.
<snip>
On 09/04/2024 13:24, David wrote:
<snip>
That is not a safe assumption to make. I needed business use on my
estate car to carry goods between different parts of my own business,
even though no money was exchanged and they were on the same industrial
estate.
<snip>
That is obviously business use, as you clearly state, so I am not sure
what your point is here.
What I am trying to discuss is the point at which SD&P could (perhaps
inadvertently) become business use.
As I said, that can vary between insurers. However, your example of
moving furniture for a neighbour is something that might need a business insurance, not because it is a business use, but because it is neither social, domestic nor pleasure use, as defined by the insurer.
On 09/04/2024 13:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 13:24, David wrote:Surely its Social activity , especially if its not a regular activity.
<snip>
That is not a safe assumption to make. I needed business use on my
estate car to carry goods between different parts of my own business,
even though no money was exchanged and they were on the same industrial >>>> estate.
<snip>
That is obviously business use, as you clearly state, so I am not sure
what your point is here.
What I am trying to discuss is the point at which SD&P could (perhaps
inadvertently) become business use.
As I said, that can vary between insurers. However, your example of
moving furniture for a neighbour is something that might need a
business insurance, not because it is a business use, but because it
is neither social, domestic nor pleasure use, as defined by the insurer.
Its not carried out in the course of business activities of any kind.
On 09/04/2024 14:30, Robert wrote:
On 09/04/2024 13:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 13:24, David wrote:Surely its Social activity , especially if its not a regular activity.
<snip>
That is not a safe assumption to make. I needed business use on my
estate car to carry goods between different parts of my own business, >>>>> even though no money was exchanged and they were on the same
industrial
estate.
<snip>
That is obviously business use, as you clearly state, so I am not sure >>>> what your point is here.
What I am trying to discuss is the point at which SD&P could (perhaps
inadvertently) become business use.
As I said, that can vary between insurers. However, your example of
moving furniture for a neighbour is something that might need a
business insurance, not because it is a business use, but because it
is neither social, domestic nor pleasure use, as defined by the insurer. >>>
Its not carried out in the course of business activities of any kind.
I am simply warning that your interpretations of the terms social,
domestic and pleasure may not match those of your insurer.
This is what one insurer has to say:
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/which-class-of-use
I doubt that carrying a piece of furniture for a neighbour would count
as 'normal day to day driving', but that is only my opinion. However,
getting it wrong could result in you driving while uninsured, although
that probably wouldn't come to light unless you are involved in an
accident and somebody mentions the furniture.
On 08/04/2024 18:14, GB wrote:
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation". I
expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
I think that means you can't use the car for commuting to or from work.
On 08/04/2024 21:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/04/2024 18:14, GB wrote:
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation". I
expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
I think that means you can't use the car for commuting to or from work.
That can't be right, as commuting is a pretty much standard use for a car.
On 08/04/2024 21:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/04/2024 18:14, GB wrote:
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation". I
expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
I think that means you can't use the car for commuting to or from work.
That can't be right, as commuting is a pretty much standard use for a car.
Someone has asked for help in moving an item between two locations, on a local forum.
Apparently there were a couple of offers to do it for £10, which then came to nothing.
I offered to do it for free, but then the issue of insurance was raised
(in a somewhat confusing fashion).
I am assuming that if you offer to move, say, a small chest of drawers in
the back of your estate car then you are expected to exercise reasonable care, but you would not be liable for any accidental damage such as a scratch.
This is on the principle that no contract exists because there has not
been an offer and the receipt of a consideration, which I understand is necessary for a contract to exist.
This does raise the question about the "do it for a tenner" brigade. Presumably they should be insured to cover any risks to the cargo, having accepted some form of liability.
This is all fairly trivial in the great scheme of things, and I assume
that an aggrieved party would have to go to court to get any compensation, but this did make me (over)think what liabilities are involved in shifting something for a friend or acquaintance.
My current view is if the person wants an object transported at no risk to themselves then they should engage a professional carrier with terms and conditions and insurance.
However I assume many people have moved things on behalf of others and
wonder how exposed they might be to a claim:
(1) if they did it for free
(2) if they accepted payment
(2a) If that payment was to cover fuel costs only.
Cheers
Dave R
On 09/04/2024 17:17, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/04/2024 15:50, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 14:30, Robert wrote:
On 09/04/2024 13:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 13:24, David wrote:Surely its Social activity , especially if its not a regular
<snip>
That is not a safe assumption to make. I needed business use on my >>>>>>> estate car to carry goods between different parts of my own
business,
even though no money was exchanged and they were on the same
industrial
estate.
<snip>
That is obviously business use, as you clearly state, so I am not
sure
what your point is here.
What I am trying to discuss is the point at which SD&P could (perhaps >>>>>> inadvertently) become business use.
As I said, that can vary between insurers. However, your example of
moving furniture for a neighbour is something that might need a
business insurance, not because it is a business use, but because
it is neither social, domestic nor pleasure use, as defined by the
insurer.
activity. Its not carried out in the course of business activities
of any kind.
I am simply warning that your interpretations of the terms social,
domestic and pleasure may not match those of your insurer.
This is what one insurer has to say:
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/which-class-of-use >>>
I doubt that carrying a piece of furniture for a neighbour would
count as 'normal day to day driving', but that is only my opinion.
However, getting it wrong could result in you driving while
uninsured, although that probably wouldn't come to light unless you
are involved in an accident and somebody mentions the furniture.
Collecting a new piece of furniture from Ikea wouldn't be a "day to
day" action, but i would expect it to be allowable for domestic
insurance purposes, whether you are fetching it for your own use or
for a neighbour.
Shopping is specifically covered, but moving a piece of furniture for somebody else is not shopping.
I fully agree with your warning about what insurers mean in their descriptions, but ISTR that the Insurance Ombudsman has always gone
alongwith the meaning of words and phrases in common usage.
So Social use would cover taking your neighbour somewhere or delivering
an item you have just given away etc. Especially as in the excellent
example of Admiral it is stated that the Business options are related to either your work or your business - hire & reward. Many companies even
state that accepting petrol money when car sharing is allowed.
On 09/04/2024 17:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/04/2024 21:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/04/2024 18:14, GB wrote:
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation". I
expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
I think that means you can't use the car for commuting to or from work.
That can't be right, as commuting is a pretty much standard use for a
car.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! :)
You need SDP and Commuting. You need that even if you just drive to the station and leave it in the car park.
On 09/04/2024 15:50, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 14:30, Robert wrote:
On 09/04/2024 13:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 13:24, David wrote:Surely its Social activity , especially if its not a regular
<snip>
That is not a safe assumption to make. I needed business use on my >>>>>> estate car to carry goods between different parts of my own business, >>>>>> even though no money was exchanged and they were on the same
industrial
estate.
<snip>
That is obviously business use, as you clearly state, so I am not sure >>>>> what your point is here.
What I am trying to discuss is the point at which SD&P could (perhaps >>>>> inadvertently) become business use.
As I said, that can vary between insurers. However, your example of
moving furniture for a neighbour is something that might need a
business insurance, not because it is a business use, but because it
is neither social, domestic nor pleasure use, as defined by the
insurer.
activity. Its not carried out in the course of business activities of
any kind.
I am simply warning that your interpretations of the terms social,
domestic and pleasure may not match those of your insurer.
This is what one insurer has to say:
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/which-class-of-use
I doubt that carrying a piece of furniture for a neighbour would count
as 'normal day to day driving', but that is only my opinion. However,
getting it wrong could result in you driving while uninsured, although
that probably wouldn't come to light unless you are involved in an
accident and somebody mentions the furniture.
Collecting a new piece of furniture from Ikea wouldn't be a "day to day" action, but i would expect it to be allowable for domestic insurance purposes, whether you are fetching it for your own use or for a neighbour.
On 09/04/2024 17:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/04/2024 21:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/04/2024 18:14, GB wrote:
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation". I
expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
I think that means you can't use the car for commuting to or from work.
That can't be right, as commuting is a pretty much standard use for a
car.
Some insurers include commuting in SD&P, but other, like Admiral, do not:
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/which-class-of-use
On 09/04/2024 19:00, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 17:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/04/2024 21:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/04/2024 18:14, GB wrote:That can't be right, as commuting is a pretty much standard use for a
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation".
I expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
I think that means you can't use the car for commuting to or from work. >>>
car.
Some insurers include commuting in SD&P, but other, like Admiral, do not:
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/which-class-of-use
Which suggests that others do, and their criteria is different. I would
also expect Admiral policies would specify "Social, Domestic and
pleasure excluding commuting" rather than SD&P.
On 09/04/2024 19:05, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/04/2024 19:00, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 17:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/04/2024 21:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/04/2024 18:14, GB wrote:
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation". >>>>>> I expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
I think that means you can't use the car for commuting to or from
work.
That can't be right, as commuting is a pretty much standard use for
a car.
Some insurers include commuting in SD&P, but other, like Admiral, do
not:
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/which-class-of-use
Which suggests that others do, and their criteria is different. I
would also expect Admiral policies would specify "Social, Domestic and
pleasure excluding commuting" rather than SD&P.
Typical insurance trickery. Do they define "social"? Is that just "best friends" or does it include casual acquaintances? What about someone you
just met and offer to take them home as they are unwell?
What's "domestic"? Does that include lodgers and distant relatives?
What counts as "pleasure"? Does that mean that you are not allowed to
drive home from a concert you didn't enjoy?
On 09/04/2024 19:00, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 17:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/04/2024 21:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/04/2024 18:14, GB wrote:That can't be right, as commuting is a pretty much standard use for a
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation".
I expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
I think that means you can't use the car for commuting to or from work. >>>
car.
Some insurers include commuting in SD&P, but other, like Admiral, do not:
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/which-class-of-use
Which suggests that others do, and their criteria is different. I would
also expect Admiral policies would specify "Social, Domestic and
pleasure excluding commuting" rather than SD&P.
On 09/04/2024 19:47, Robert wrote:
....
I fully agree with your warning about what insurers mean in their
descriptions, but ISTR that the Insurance Ombudsman has always gone
alongwith the meaning of words and phrases in common usage.
So Social use would cover taking your neighbour somewhere or
delivering an item you have just given away etc. Especially as in the
excellent example of Admiral it is stated that the Business options
are related to either your work or your business - hire & reward. Many
companies even state that accepting petrol money when car sharing is
allowed.
If there were any doubt, I would prefer to have an email from my insurer confirming that what I want to do is covered than have to take a case to
the Ombudsman though. Perhaps that is just me.
On 09/04/2024 19:05, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/04/2024 19:00, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/04/2024 17:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/04/2024 21:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/04/2024 18:14, GB wrote:
I can drive for SD&P, but not "in connection with any occupation". >>>>>> I expect that they mean use in connection with any job or work.
I think that means you can't use the car for commuting to or from
work.
That can't be right, as commuting is a pretty much standard use for
a car.
Some insurers include commuting in SD&P, but other, like Admiral, do
not:
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/which-class-of-use
Which suggests that others do, and their criteria is different. I
would also expect Admiral policies would specify "Social, Domestic and
pleasure excluding commuting" rather than SD&P.
Typical insurance trickery. Do they define "social"? Is that just "best friends" or does it include casual acquaintances? What about someone you
just met and offer to take them home as they are unwell?
What's "domestic"? Does that include lodgers and distant relatives?
What counts as "pleasure"? Does that mean that you are not allowed to
drive home from a concert you didn't enjoy?
On 06/04/2024 14:35, David wrote:
Someone has asked for help in moving an item between two locations, on a
local forum.
Apparently there were a couple of offers to do it for £10, which then came >> to nothing.
I offered to do it for free, but then the issue of insurance was raised
(in a somewhat confusing fashion).
I am assuming that if you offer to move, say, a small chest of drawers in
the back of your estate car then you are expected to exercise reasonable
care, but you would not be liable for any accidental damage such as a
scratch.
This is on the principle that no contract exists because there has not
been an offer and the receipt of a consideration, which I understand is
necessary for a contract to exist.
This does raise the question about the "do it for a tenner" brigade.
Presumably they should be insured to cover any risks to the cargo, having
accepted some form of liability.
This is all fairly trivial in the great scheme of things, and I assume
that an aggrieved party would have to go to court to get any compensation, >> but this did make me (over)think what liabilities are involved in shifting >> something for a friend or acquaintance.
My current view is if the person wants an object transported at no risk to >> themselves then they should engage a professional carrier with terms and
conditions and insurance.
However I assume many people have moved things on behalf of others and
wonder how exposed they might be to a claim:
(1) if they did it for free
(2) if they accepted payment
(2a) If that payment was to cover fuel costs only.
For (1), to ensure you are fully protected, you would need "Goods in
Transit" (often shortened to GIT) insurance.
Absent that, you would be best served by having a declaration that you
are not responsible for any loss or damage the item suffers whilst being loaded / unloaded and whilst in transit and have the other party sign
it. (I'm minded of the episode S02E18 of The Big Bang Theory where
Sheldon insists that Penny signs a piece of paper he's drawn up to acknowledge receipt of the parcel he signed for on her behalf making him
a bailee and he won't pass the goods to her until she signs to ensure he
is no longer liable.)
(2) is clearly in the realms of "Hire or reward" so you'd need business insurance for the vehicle with additional cover for third party GIT.
(2a) is a red-herring. It matters not what the money is for, or even if
it is a payment-in-kind, if it is agreed that you will do [x] in
exchange for [y] and [y] is not "nothing" then you are in category (2) territory.
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.
Regards
S.P.
Insurance is incredibly competitive at the moment and examples have been cited in the thread where underwriters have achieved a lower price by....
cutting cover. To add to the anecdata, I was speaking to a relative
earlier in the week and he was incensed when he checked his recently
renewed policy to find that the didn't have third party cover for any vehicle. He and his partner have family in Cornwall and they usually
share the driving, but he isn't a named driver on his partner's policy
and relies on his own third party cover. (No, I don't understand why he does this, but he does.) The change to the terms of his insurance meant that he would have been driving the vehicle uninsured if he hadn't
checked but when he had checked it meant they couldn't share the
driving. (He intends to add himself as a named driver the next time the policy is renewed.)
On 10 Apr 2024 at 18:01:24 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/04/2024 14:35, David wrote:
Someone has asked for help in moving an item between two locations, on a >>> local forum.
Apparently there were a couple of offers to do it for £10, which then came >>> to nothing.
I offered to do it for free, but then the issue of insurance was raised
(in a somewhat confusing fashion).
I am assuming that if you offer to move, say, a small chest of drawers in >>> the back of your estate car then you are expected to exercise reasonable >>> care, but you would not be liable for any accidental damage such as a
scratch.
This is on the principle that no contract exists because there has not
been an offer and the receipt of a consideration, which I understand is
necessary for a contract to exist.
This does raise the question about the "do it for a tenner" brigade.
Presumably they should be insured to cover any risks to the cargo, having >>> accepted some form of liability.
This is all fairly trivial in the great scheme of things, and I assume
that an aggrieved party would have to go to court to get any compensation, >>> but this did make me (over)think what liabilities are involved in shifting >>> something for a friend or acquaintance.
My current view is if the person wants an object transported at no risk to >>> themselves then they should engage a professional carrier with terms and >>> conditions and insurance.
However I assume many people have moved things on behalf of others and
wonder how exposed they might be to a claim:
(1) if they did it for free
(2) if they accepted payment
(2a) If that payment was to cover fuel costs only.
For (1), to ensure you are fully protected, you would need "Goods in
Transit" (often shortened to GIT) insurance.
Absent that, you would be best served by having a declaration that you
are not responsible for any loss or damage the item suffers whilst being
loaded / unloaded and whilst in transit and have the other party sign
it. (I'm minded of the episode S02E18 of The Big Bang Theory where
Sheldon insists that Penny signs a piece of paper he's drawn up to
acknowledge receipt of the parcel he signed for on her behalf making him
a bailee and he won't pass the goods to her until she signs to ensure he
is no longer liable.)
(2) is clearly in the realms of "Hire or reward" so you'd need business
insurance for the vehicle with additional cover for third party GIT.
(2a) is a red-herring. It matters not what the money is for, or even if
it is a payment-in-kind, if it is agreed that you will do [x] in
exchange for [y] and [y] is not "nothing" then you are in category (2)
territory.
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.
Regards
S.P.
I thought there was an exception for car pools covering fuel costs only, is that just for commuting, not the school run?
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.
On 10 Apr 2024 at 18:01:24 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/04/2024 14:35, David wrote:
Someone has asked for help in moving an item between two locations, on a >>> local forum.
Apparently there were a couple of offers to do it for £10, which then came >>> to nothing.
I offered to do it for free, but then the issue of insurance was raised
(in a somewhat confusing fashion).
I am assuming that if you offer to move, say, a small chest of drawers in >>> the back of your estate car then you are expected to exercise reasonable >>> care, but you would not be liable for any accidental damage such as a
scratch.
This is on the principle that no contract exists because there has not
been an offer and the receipt of a consideration, which I understand is
necessary for a contract to exist.
This does raise the question about the "do it for a tenner" brigade.
Presumably they should be insured to cover any risks to the cargo, having >>> accepted some form of liability.
This is all fairly trivial in the great scheme of things, and I assume
that an aggrieved party would have to go to court to get any compensation, >>> but this did make me (over)think what liabilities are involved in shifting >>> something for a friend or acquaintance.
My current view is if the person wants an object transported at no risk to >>> themselves then they should engage a professional carrier with terms and >>> conditions and insurance.
However I assume many people have moved things on behalf of others and
wonder how exposed they might be to a claim:
(1) if they did it for free
(2) if they accepted payment
(2a) If that payment was to cover fuel costs only.
For (1), to ensure you are fully protected, you would need "Goods in
Transit" (often shortened to GIT) insurance.
Absent that, you would be best served by having a declaration that you
are not responsible for any loss or damage the item suffers whilst being
loaded / unloaded and whilst in transit and have the other party sign
it. (I'm minded of the episode S02E18 of The Big Bang Theory where
Sheldon insists that Penny signs a piece of paper he's drawn up to
acknowledge receipt of the parcel he signed for on her behalf making him
a bailee and he won't pass the goods to her until she signs to ensure he
is no longer liable.)
(2) is clearly in the realms of "Hire or reward" so you'd need business
insurance for the vehicle with additional cover for third party GIT.
(2a) is a red-herring. It matters not what the money is for, or even if
it is a payment-in-kind, if it is agreed that you will do [x] in
exchange for [y] and [y] is not "nothing" then you are in category (2)
territory.
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.
Regards
S.P.
I thought there was an exception for car pools covering fuel costs only, is that just for commuting, not the school run?
On 07/04/2024 13:19, David wrote:...
I struggle to see how moving something free of charge could count as
business use.
For example taking a bin bag full of garden waste to the tip in your
little trailer for a friend/neighbour, along with your own garden waste.
Not only is that business use, but you'd need to be registered with the
local authority as a Waste Carrier.
No, I'm not joking.
You may only transport your own domestic waste to the HWRC, including
garden waste.
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.
On 11/04/2024 10:13, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-04-10, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/04/2024 13:19, David wrote:...
I struggle to see how moving something free of charge could count asNot only is that business use, but you'd need to be registered with the
business use.
For example taking a bin bag full of garden waste to the tip in your
little trailer for a friend/neighbour, along with your own garden waste. >>>
local authority as a Waste Carrier.
No, I'm not joking.
You may only transport your own domestic waste to the HWRC, including
garden waste.
Is that universal or determined by your council?
The Environment Agency.
I've occasionally hired a man-with-van service to take our own
household waste to the tip; we just had to book it in advance and
specify the van's number plate and type of contents, but it was
treated as domestic waste.
And you, no doubt, checked they were on the Upper Tier Register of Waste Carriers, Brokers and Dealers as part of your due diligence? [^1]
Similarly, I have no doubt that they provided you with the "Duty of
Care: Waste Transfer Note" as required? [^2]
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.
On 2024-04-11, Simon Parker wrote:
On 11/04/2024 10:13, Adam Funk wrote:
I've occasionally hired a man-with-van service to take our own
household waste to the tip; we just had to book it in advance and
specify the van's number plate and type of contents, but it was
treated as domestic waste.
And you, no doubt, checked they were on the Upper Tier Register of Waste
Carriers, Brokers and Dealers as part of your due diligence? [^1]
Similarly, I have no doubt that they provided you with the "Duty of
Care: Waste Transfer Note" as required? [^2]
Last time, I phoned the van service (in this case run by a local
non-profit organization, but I doubt that matters)
to ask about
transporting a sofa to the tip. They said to phone the tip and book it
in, and gave me the van's plate number.
I phoned the waste facility (run by a contractor for the council) and
they confirmed that this was allowed and could be handled as domestic
waste. They took my contact details, the van's plate number, a brief >description of the waste ("one sofa"), and the date of transport. It
all worked out as planned with no problems, so I think I can safely
assume that it was legal.
This was about 6 or 7 years ago, so maybe the law has changed since
then?
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:23:03 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-11, Simon Parker wrote:
On 11/04/2024 10:13, Adam Funk wrote:
I've occasionally hired a man-with-van service to take our own
household waste to the tip; we just had to book it in advance and
specify the van's number plate and type of contents, but it was
treated as domestic waste.
And you, no doubt, checked they were on the Upper Tier Register of Waste >>> Carriers, Brokers and Dealers as part of your due diligence? [^1]
Similarly, I have no doubt that they provided you with the "Duty of
Care: Waste Transfer Note" as required? [^2]
Last time, I phoned the van service (in this case run by a local
non-profit organization, but I doubt that matters)
It does matter, see below.
to ask about
transporting a sofa to the tip. They said to phone the tip and book it
in, and gave me the van's plate number.
I phoned the waste facility (run by a contractor for the council) and
they confirmed that this was allowed and could be handled as domestic >>waste. They took my contact details, the van's plate number, a brief >>description of the waste ("one sofa"), and the date of transport. It
all worked out as planned with no problems, so I think I can safely
assume that it was legal.
The nature of the waste is different to the nature of the transport.
Domestic waste is free to dispose of, no matter who delivers it to the tip, but transporting it by anyone other than the household which generated it requires a waste carrier licence.
Broadly speaking (and there are exceptions), it can be summarised like this:
Domestic waste
Disposal: free
Transport by yourself: unregulated (no licence needed)
Transport by someone else: regulated, higher-tier licence required
Non-Domestic waste
Disposal: chargeable
Transport by yourself: regulated, lower-tier licence required
Transport by someone else: regulated, higher-tier licence required
A lower-tier waste carrier licence (allowing a business to transport its own waste, but nobody else's) is free, and lasts for the lifetime of the business. This is mainly to ensure that business waste can be tracked
through the system if necessary, and a business which takes its own waste to the tip will generally need to show the licence on arrival.
A business doesn't have to have a lower-tier licence; if all its waste is collected from its own premises (eg, by Biffa or the like) then it won't be doing any transporting of waste and hence won't need a licence. But it can still be useful to have a licence, just in case there's ever a need to transport waste between sites or to take it to the tip.
One of the exceptions is that a registered charity (eg, the non-profit organisation you mentioned above) normally only needs a lower-tier licence, even when transporting other people's waste, provided that waste transport
is not their primary business.
This was about 6 or 7 years ago, so maybe the law has changed since
then?
The carrier licence requirements have been pretty much the same since 1990.
Mark
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?
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 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 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.
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 theall of our sites have CCTV and ANPR, and if a particular vehicle and/or
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
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.
"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.
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" <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
"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 ?
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.)
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.
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?
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 intothe 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)
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. (I've added some highlightingThe 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. >>>
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(!).
"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.
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 ?
"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.
"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. (I've added some highlightingThe 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. >>>>
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
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 44:14:12 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,109 |