Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Network Rail said: "Once identified, Japanese knotweed growing on our land is entered into a treatment programme. We will continue with this established regime, which complies with legislation and helps us run a safe, reliable railway."

That doesn't sit very comfortably with the CofA judgment in this case, which said "The Recorder noted a treatment carried out in October 2013, a failure to treat in 2014, and further treatments in 2015 and 2016 and concluded that on no reasonable basis could they be considered adequate or reasonable. The Recorder concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that NR had since 2012 failed to carry out its obligation as a reasonable landowner to eliminate and prevent interference with the quiet enjoyment of both claimants of their properties."

Also worth noting that NR ran the argument that "... because Japanese knotweed is widespread in the Maesteg area, where it is part of the character of the locality and can grow with impunity and affect residential properties nearby, the claimants simply had to tolerate it"

I know it is reasonable to ask the parties involved for their side of the story, but where a PR comment is so obviously undermined by the facts of the case and how they defended it, I would hope that contradiction would be pointed out.

Your details

Cancel