London Underground – Ruislip Manor – 2012

Another action taken against London Underground over littered embankments in Ruislip Manor.

In 2011 I took London Underground Ltd to court over the persistently littered state of  two embankments in Ruislip Manor. They run down either side of the bridge opposite the station and abut on to Victoria Road.  This resulted in a clean-up on 30th September.  Please refer to  London Underground Ruislip Manor 2011.

However by January 2012 both embankments were once again persistently littered.  On 26th March 2012 I sent a Warning Notice under EPA S 91 to London Underground Ltd saying that, unless they cleaned up two sections of embankment, I would apply to the court (again!) for an order to enforce them to do so.

This went unheeded and on 3rd April I lodged a formal complaint for a litter abatement order with Uxbridge Magistrates Court. Too keep matters as simple as possible I limited the complaint to the embankement on the south side of the bridge. The court duly issued a Summons to London Underground on 25th May.

An initial hearing took place on 17th July when directions were agreed. The trial hearing was to have taken place on 6th November  2012 at 10.15 am.  I checked the condition of the land before heading to court. It was, as usual, defaced by litter and refuse.  I arrived and met with  LUL’s solicitor, their barrister and their witness only to sit their all morning. By noon it was clear that we would not be heard until after lunch. However LUL’s witness had an important early afternoon meeting to go to .

In order to try to get the matter settled  without the need to call upon their witness I offered LUL’s solicitor  a deal whereby LUL would accept that the land was defaced with litter at the time I made my complaint to the court, pay my costs  and give me an undertaking that they would clean the land within 7 days.  After consulting head office he  declined my offer.

One interesting thing came out of our discussion.  He  said that he had been advised by their witness that the heavily littered narrow strip of land between the low wall and LUL’s fence was not their land.  They said it belonged to the adjacent pizza shop.  However the wall is a straight line continuation of the end wall of the row of shops and is clearly the delineation between  those premises and embankment.  In my opinion LUL had simply left the gap when constructing the fence for no obvious reason.

Article in Ruislip Gazette

Peter Silverman
8th November 2012 






Comments are closed.