Hi Arne,
On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the landowner to
>> claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the
>> immediate and exclusive possession of another". What constitutes
>> "unjustifiable" is the key here. Delivering a package would sound like
>> justification to me (IANAL).
>
> According to Wikipedia: "Justification by law refers to those situations in
> which there is statutory authority permitting a person to go onto land, such
> as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows the police to
> enter land for the purposes of carrying out an arrest."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law#Defences_2
>
> This seems to mean that there would need to be a law specifically allowing
> access for package deliveries in order for that to be "justified". I'm
> assuming such a law doesn't exist in the UK (but you're most welcome to
> correct me).
The UK is a common-law system, so there is a lot of stuff that is not
explicitly covered by statutes, just by case history through the years
full of concepts like "reasonableness."
Well, the postal service has an obligation to deliver to every address,
and has standards for the letter box and its accessibility. As a
householder, if you want to receive letters, you need to have a
compliant letterbox. So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
over your land to fulfil his legal duty. Parcels are different as they
are not part of the Universal Service Obligations.
I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom"
which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing
emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit
signing to the contrary of course).
Google told me that the United States Postal Service does not deliver on
private land, which would explain why they have their mailboxes at the
side of the road and not at their front door.
>> I disagree that permission needs to be explicit for access=private.
>
> Okay. Can you explain, specifically, how "implicit" permissions are supposed
> to work?
With hindsight, what I called "implicit permission" might better be
termed "reasonable excuse"
> For example, here are a few images of "keep out" signs. Now think of somebody
> making a package delivery. How are they supposed to determine whether
> "implicit" permission exists in their individual case or not? Is it different
> for some of these signs, or are they all the same in this regard?
I expect a "keep out" sign would probably override implicit permission?
Implicit permission would be covered by "custom" and "reasonableness" -
if you actually tried to sue a delivery driver for trespass the case
would be thrown out of court, unless you had some kind of sign, barrier
etc showing that you forbid what in most cases is a normal activity.
> BTW, let me point out that choosing not to take legal action is not the same
> thing as giving permission.
> And assuming that no one will take legal action is not the same thing has
> having received permission.
Which is exactly why a driveway is access=private. Maybe a delivery
driver doesn't have "permission" as such, but he may have a reasonable
justification to use your driveway.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
