UK Property Law
Get UK Property Law Questions Answered by Experts
can you put out your rating button
It pops up when I answer.I need background please to this particular question.I will say that courts do not like people suing police. That is they dont like it on a: grounds of "opening floodgates" (that is the legal term) and c: Public interest (lack of).I assume that you have already gone the IPCC route.:-)
can appeal within 28 days. "abuse of the complaints system was their view plus blame it on cps". I accept what you're saying having had the run down from Jomo...
I'm thinking more about CPS. The action could have been closed down at an early stage. My solic repeatedly asked for photos to which the Surveyor alluded which demonstrated my neighbour's encroachment and hence entitlement to remove the neighbours materials. I do still wish to obtain these photos. May I assume cps could still insist upon them being supplied?
Do yrself a favour and let it go. Sorry to be so blunt. My best mate has exactly this T shirt. It was blatant miscarriage of justice but after an initial enthusiasm from plod (I suspect giving it lip service) it went nowhere and it consumed him for months. You are up against the system and only small % of complaints get upheld.
CPS can get court order to get the info/pics but only if the matter is ongoing.\
ok i hear you re plod...but what about cps ?
do i have to make an application before i can get the pics? can i make the applic and immed get the photos?
yes ... and the survey in addition to my own shows criminal proceedings should never have been brought.
the officer who attended had a malicious agenda. this needs to be addressed and not ignored just because its so difficult to secure a successful complaint.
What amounts to a successful complaint? If attention is brought to one s concerns what happens then?
I agree with you completely.As I said earlier, a friend of mine went through exactly this with a maliciousneighbour who for some reason the police always came down in favour of.
In actual fact, his complaintwas upheld what he got nothing out of it other than the satisfaction.
Have you yet exhausted the IPCC process?
thanks for that.
i had 28 days from 29th may...so i'm in time...to arrive before 27th june.
do i copy to snotty police manager...or not bother?
he says under provisions of schedule 3 paragraph 3 of the police reform act 2002....my complaint was not recorded as a complaint!
why don't i just pursue an action against them in the courts? or am i required to go thro this first?
You can pursue an actionagainst them in the court but you have to prove loss and I can tell you nowthat judges really do not like people suing the police, as I said earlier, onthe grounds of opening the floodgates (that is the legal term) and on thegrounds of public interest.
There is case law on it.
The mother of the YorkshireRipper's last victim sued the chief Constable of West Yorkshire in negligencebecause the police had arrested Peter Sutcliffe but let him go. If they hadcharged him, her daughter would not have been a victim.
Her claim failed, not becausethe judge thought that the police had been negligent but because he was mindfulof opening the floodgates to litigation every time the police put a foot wrong.
I wouldn't copy anything toplod. They will find out in due course
thank you for the sobering example...how utterly awful...i don't know how much the police knew at the time but asking any party to look into the future is much more difficult than the cut and dried issue here. police should not be determining boundaries. simples.
Here is one article http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19880429&id=yzhAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=N1kMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5370,8004750
and here is plenty more toread http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&q=hill+v+chief+constable+west+yo rkshire+1988&oq=west+yorkshire+hill+cheif+constable&gs_l=serp.1.1.0i8i13i30l4.3561.9379.0.11622.214.171.124.0.0.0.122.1944.14j6.20.0...0.0...1c.1.17.psy-ab.bloREV_S6-0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=e7894cbeaa6c959c&biw=1451&bih=698
although it was to do withbreach of a duty of care rather than bias.
In your case, theinvestigating police (as often happens I'm afraid to say) acted as judge andjury and formed their own opinion quite early on. That is something that theyshould not have done.
In danger of this turninginto a debate : Please remember that I am not a lover of the police but they doa difficult job elsewhere, often with their hands tied behind their backs.Notwithstanding, they do have their failings and they often seem to chase theline of least resistance. It is easier to nick someone for being drunk anddisorderly or speeding or obstruction than it is to investigate a burglary.
Having said that, we stillhave what is probably the fairest and the least corrupt justice system in theworld.
One final point that is thateven when you said you would pay me £200 per hour to bring this application, Iwould tell you to keep your money in your pocket.
I cannot be any straighter.
I ve just written back saying its not in the public interest for the police to be PAYING to determine private boundaries.
L.....? I just read a brilliant exchange by you and a cust about easements or some sort of land issue and I can't seem to find it again..can you help?
Also its been pointed out that a lot of my troubles spring from Land Registry errors.
Can you give me a link to the top dogs to whom I should address myself at LR ?London.
The outcome is that my neighbour is possessing unreg'd land and whilst I have an easement in the alt I might just as well stick up a fence round the bit I need : to protect my access and possess (maybe about half?) of what they're taking. Something of a brilliant solution! Just the doing of it will be delicate!
I would also like to check with you about the law please.
So if predecessors of theirs had had an earlier enclosure for more than 12 years but they were mere leaseholders ...they could not dispossess the freeholder ...right?
(But even if they could when we came along there was access. And my friend bought his lease with the area open and accessible).
Their enclosure is not actually complete but if it were and we are talking about unregistered land which requires 12 years occupation...is it not the case that they would be able to evict me as a competing squatter? Having got there first?
I sometimes deal withup to 100 questions a day so unless I knew a bit more about the subject matterI wouldn't know which one it was, sorry
Write to the chiefregistrar (whose name changes from time to time but any land registry customerservices will give you his name and the correct address) with your complaint.
I could not agree morethat the police should not have been involved with this and that is thereforethe basis of a complaint (but not litigation).
If somebody has alease, they occupied by consent and therefore they can never dispossess thefreeholder and claim adverse possession. If they had no lease and simplyoccupied it and it is unregistered that after 12 years they can claim adversepossession. The period is 10 years for registered land.
The possession must befactual (they must be in physical possession) and they must have occupied it tothe exclusion of others which generally means that they have to fence it off.They must not have shared it with anybody else apart from their own lawfulvisitors.
can a complaint not be the basis of litigation? police should not be using public money to pay for surveys to try to uphold a groundless prosecution...the fencing i removed was on my land according to my surveyor...but my neighbours argue the midpoint should be the boundary... the midpoint was indentified by the neighbours surveyor...but neither opinion is a boundary determination.
the issue i have with the police is that my neighbour obtained the consent of the local inspector to remove my fence and to replace it with her own. what right do the police have to allow this and the destruction of my property? i want to bring an action against them. ihave written to the ipcc asking for my complaint to be put on hold (would that be a stay?) pending further investigation of my complaint of damage which was never acted upon by police...but may be now?
the unreg land issue ...the neighbour was a leaseholder of the freeholder of the entire broader expanse of land. ...even though her ownership of any part was never registered...she may have intended to lease out all areas...but there are communal parts eg the drive and a path beside the garages which are reg'd as communal. the area i see as the maintenance area is not reg'd nor coloured as communal nor indentified as retained by the freeholder but it is/was her land according to the original plans...but she wants no involvement in a neighbour dispute. tho i was told she couldn't get out of it, its prob in my best interest to try to address the matter myself as she s likely to take the path of least resistance...though let me ask this. Could the leaseholders have dispossessed the unreg element of her land? or was it not merely an accretion of their lease into her land and if so what would be the impact of that on me as a former competing user also with generalised rights of access per lease?
I amlooking at this purely from a practical view.
I could notagree with you more. This is not something that by any stretch of even a veryvivid imagination, the police should be involved in.
From thefact you have given me I think they are completely out of order for a wholevariety of reasons.
However forthe reasons I mentioned earlier regarding suing the police it is not a routethat I would suggest you went down unless you are hellbent.
Theleaseholder could not claim adverse possession (I think that is what you weretalking about) money land over which they have consent use it, over whichanyone has objected to them using it or over which anybody else has used it.They have to have had exclusive possession and treated it as their own for over12 years
what if they, or predecessors, had 12 years exclusive occupation prior to my arrival?
Or is the fact that they were only leaseholders relevant? Is it the case that until they became freeholders themselves they could not dispossess either my friend as another leaseholder, now freeholder, nor the "residual freeholder" (what would you call the owner of the remaining parts once the leasehold reversions have been bought?).
The neighbours next door in this terrace of 5 former leaseholds are trying to block off a small unregistered area ...but which is part of the residual freeholders land.
It is also needed for access.
But is this an instance where an easement could die...due to upgrading of title by the squatter? To the detriment of the would -be user of the lease implied access/easement?
Or was the wording of the lease sufficient to protect the whole area including the unregistered bit?
If they have 12 years exclusive occupation withoutobjection consent or in secret they are entitled to apply to have it registeredas theirs under the doctrine of adverse possession.
The fact that they are leaseholders is immaterial.
It is not a leasehold reversion, it is a freeholdreversion. The leasehold is extinguished and the whole title reverts tofreehold at the end of the lease. So that person you are speaking about is thefreeholder.
If there is an access enjoyed by others, theycannot apply for adverse possession because they need to be able to haveexclusive use of it. Strangely enough the same question has cropped up again onhere within the last 30 minutes. Of course, when they apply (if they apply) foradverse possession registration, they could lie on the application form!
If there is an easement, an easement cannot beextinguished other than by agreement. It does not get extinguished throughnon-use.
The wording of the lease is sufficient to protectanything (registered or unregistered) referred to in the lease
well...how do you square the first paragraph with the last?
does a lease allowing access override someone trying to exclude others? so if there had been a way to get to a garage back but it was blocked off by a neighbour who had the same freeholder (and so was subject to the same lease) but it had been blocked off for more than 12 years - who suceeds? The earlier squatter or the later applicant seeking to enforce the right of access?
The middle paragraph qualifies it
If the lease allows access, then there is access and no one can everhave adverse possession because they cannot occupy the land exclusively.
Yes, therefore the lease overrides someone trying to exclude othersand even if they do exclude others, by some fair means or foul, the right ofaccess continues to exist. It would not matter if it had been blocked off for100 years, the easement exists.
thank you and for getting back to me so promptly.
are you answering the other question? how will i be able to view it?
your answer is what i'm hoping for... BUT..i had read a case where a judge determined a.p had been successful inspite of the inconvenience caused to others over lost access...would you know the name of the case?
the lease of the neighbour was lost they claim or was never served due to land reg error. its not a specific easement. the lease refers to rights of access at all reasonable times to sewers and for the running of cables and for repairs inspection and maintenance. its handy to be able to inspect the garage roof from the vantage point of the unreg raised area of land beyond the gulley (also unreg) behind the garages.
so a leaseholder can dispossess their freeholder if occupying for more than 12 years having excluded others who did not know they could claim the right to go beyond the obstructions?
Here you are. http://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/7uqxg-live-old-cottage-path-runs-back.html
I am not familiar with the case that you mention.
It would depend whether there was actually an easement (either bydeed or prescription).
The final paragraph is correct bearing in mind that the same thingapplies to any land which is being adversely possessed and fenced off
so just to re-cap:
a leaseholder can dispossess their freeholder?....Are you sure about that? I understood such occupation was considered to be an accretion of their lease?
that would then explain why a.p could not suceed until the parties each were freeholders...and would also be logical in terms of an easement being protected.
They cannot dispossess their own freeholder. The lease is consent.
They must occupy without consent.
yes but i think if its adjacent land not formally part of their land - having originally a more limited lease...their occupation becomes acknowledged as an accretion. so yes impliedly with permission...but capable of excluding another...ie me (my interest in this matter)...and then, once having obtained the freehold reversion (thanks for correcting my earlier slip!!), they then have the capacity to adversely possess their former freeholder as it is then one freeholder against another?
There is no accretion unless it is included by deed.
you mean if they registered their wider occupation?
we're at cross purposes. Got to go. could i make an appointment with you via the chat method say maybe around 10pm?
I have to disappear now. I will be on first thing in the morning but not all day.
Just reiterate the facts again please about who is what with regard to this adverse possession bit because we have talked about so many things over so long that I might be getting my wires crossed.
so sorry...I couldn't get my friend to leave!!
You would really benefit from sight of my thread with Josh. I have a further question for him when he returns...but you'ii prob have another angle. Its so helpful this multi input. Anyway this is what has taken 10 years for me to find out and to understand(!):
It seems the Land Registry have made two mistakes:
1/ When my Lease was registered with Land Registry it included generalised access rights benefiting this property, the unspecified burden of exactly the same Lease was not registered over my neighbour. She claimed her Lease had been 'lost'.
2/ After purchasing their Freehold my neighbour claimed to have 'bought' the area over which we had enjoyed access per Lease (which a LR official told me protected my interest for the purposes of access as a minimum) . A red line out of place included the unregistered area adjacent to them and behind me...giving the impression the land was part of their freehold purchase - which I believed - but I continued to object to their arrangements as I was being excluded from access.
My neighbour would see me walking over the area in question and notes that I believed I had the right to do this before they installed fencing.
So they're squatting the technically still unregistered area.
When I first came my neighbours wanted to put up fencing and approached me I tried to be as helpful as possible and asked if they would draw a plan of their proposal...which seemed to include dividing up the unreg area. ...but they would not draw a plan. it was very frustrating.
I'm trying to grasp whether their predecessors may have had an enclosure but I found the area to be accessible when I came and my friend bought his lease in reliance on the open plan arrangement and no problems. i think another leaseholder had asked the neighbour to cut back an overgrown bush which was an obstruction.
If someone had enclosed this previously would that have been significant? Might that not have been an unregistered accretion of the lease, or some legal status resulting in the right to exclude others?
I would like to put up a smaller enclosure to protect my access and the quickest way to do that is the 12 year method as a strip to one side of my neighbours claim but still inside it and competing with them...but how to avoid hostility?
Having someone follow their example might be irksome but they could apply to evict me?
Surely my right of access would not allow such an application to succeed?
i'm out tomo ...may catch you in the eve...otherwise see you monday? You off motor-biking?
Obviously, timekeeping is not a strong point! Your last post is an hourlate!! Tut-tut .
It's a good job I went in to the shed to play with motorbikes to passthe time and didn't sit waiting!!! You could have booted him/her out on thebasis that you had 10 PM Internet date!!!!
Anyway, here we are now
1 if her lease has been lost (and the landregistry do not have it) then you have some proof and she has none. That helpsyou
2 if she bought an area over which you haddocumented legal access access (an easement in the deeds) then you keep theaccess even if she blocks it for a long period of time. Easements are neverextinguished through lack of use.
3 If their predecessors had fenced thearea off in order to try and gain adverse possession, then the predecessorsperiod of occupation can be added to theirs to get the requisite 10 years forregistered land or 12 years for unregistered land. Whether they had patient ornot comes down to facts and evidence. Try to get rid of this concept of "accretionto their lease". They have a lease of an area of land. that is what they haveunder the lease. They may occupy another piece of land that is adjacent to theland that they lease but it is a completely separate thing. When a title iscreated by the lease, the only way that lease can be varied is by deed ofvariation.
4 With regard to the hostility, there isno magic solution. You cannot beat them with a stick regardless of how much youwould like to.
5 You can always be evicted until the landis registered with you as proprietor.
I'm going for a little motorbike ride tomorrow while Mr blue sky is outto play. I had a bike Rally (which I organise every year) last weekend and wehad 84 there. We had 85 the year before. We had 150 the year before that(because Mr blue sky came too).
I will be on Monday.
Do I have a remedy via my lease...uploaded and on way to you?
Spent ages replying to you above but it all got lost!!
When replying or posting, Do it in Word and cut and paste. I learned that lesson 3 years ago.
If your lease grants you rights over this land, they cannot adversely possess it because they have to be able to exclude others to AP it and they cannot do that if you tramp all over it from time to time..
Off now till this eve.
Thank you so much
cool shades man...you need a symbol with a crash helmet and ear muffs!
anyway that s the point ....you do have to walk up and down the area from time to time.What if you didn't? What if someone had 12 years without anyone else exercising access?
the other thing is if someone who is a leaseholder spreads out beyond their boundary into their freeholders wider land...I don't think they can get their own title?
hello...can we stay here the other matter is for josh as it has a history.
No problem with the other matter. I willopt out of it. It had just been waiting. I thought it was the same one.
Ignore the fact that the leaseholder mayhave a piece of property.
There encroachment or adverse possessionis looked at in isolation.
It doesn't matter that they have anadjacent lease or not if they decide to occupy Freehold land and do for thenecessary period, they can claim adverse possession.
However as I've said, they cannotadversely possess it if other people use it because they are not able toexclude all the people. The adverse possessor would have to prove that thepeople with the right of access had not exercised that right for 10 years.
This is when it becomes complicatedbecause as you are aware, an easement does not cease to exist through non-useand even if the court did grant adverse possession, it would be granted subjectto the easement.
WE ARE BEGINNING TO GET SOMEWHERE (Sorry shouting)..That would explain the proviso on the end of cautionary or possessory titles...which seemed to be a contradiction...since if someone has written rights of access a possessor does not have exclusive possession...so how could they get paper title? You say title is however qualified if someone comes forward with an interest or better title...(and hence insurance policies are advisable?).
But what about generalised rights of access as in my lease...say if the possessor claims access could be obtained by another route...but you would like to go via the route you had taken earlier? What if their forcible enclosure has not yet been in existence for even 10 years? But
they have made a start? I have an interest in the land in so far as that I would like to use it too. I believed it to be the maintenace area, part of our collective freeholder's land and communal. I accept the other properties in the terrace are not interested in using it as they have no relationship to it so there are just the two house-holds as would be users. I understood we were sharing it.
Would you look again at my lease as a potential spanner in their works please?
Thesame thing applies with alternative routes.
Justbecause an easement is no longer needed (that's because there is an alternativeroute), or is no longer used, the easement is not extinguished.
Thereare only two ways of extinguishing an easement and they are by agreement in thedeed and by the dominant and servient land coming into the same ownership.
If youown two pieces of land adjacent to each other you cannot have an easementyourself over your own land.
Ifthere are forcible enclosure has not been in existence for 10 years and thefreeholder (in your case) objects then they lose the right and the ten-yearperiod starts all over again from day one.
Yes,on this basis, I think that you are sharing it also.
Thelease refers to an area edged pink, but I do not know which area is pink. Wouldappear to be just the house area. There is then another area which is the landdown the side and what looks like the small passage, but that is not referredto in the rights which are granted on the first page of the lease. The secondparagraph of the rights simply refers to all roads impacts on the estate forthe purposes of access to and the egress from the demised premises.
Withreference to the plan, exactly which bit is it that they are claiming?
(You have the plan?
Was that sent via Maureen? The uploading doesn't work anymore..it had been fine and was brill. Might you be able to mention another customer raised the issue ...I think they want nagging.
I was grateful for your suggestion re cut and paste but I have'nt worked that one out yet...don't trust it or the way material disappears and you can't see it! I haven't yet succeeded in moving it ...unless there's a friend standing over me saying press this do that.....etc!)
If you can see the lease plan ...the area they are claiming is the long thin triangle behind the garages. The base of the triangle is behind the middle property - thats mine. The area in question, this triangle, is adjacent to theirs. Theirs being the higher numbered property with the long garden.
The lease plan differs from the land registry plan. It must be an alteration from build. I think the actual angle of the garages is not the same as the plan so if tracing paper is used and you put the garage arrangement over the map my garden is wider...I think that s it. I will ask the Surveyor again. I did send you the LR plans before. Think the question is locked now. How to send them again....frustration. PLEASE would the site address this. I am not wanting an explanation...but a cure!
The neighbour tried to alter things to make their garden wider. The result was that from an open plan arrangement a fence was installed over the tread of a set of steps. This made the steps hazardous. You have to reach across a void to reach the handle and the elderly resident kept falling down. This was quite difficult. It seems to me that any fence needs to be sited safely and preferably to one side of the drain. ...(but which side?) . Though I got welsh water to come out and they can manage access with the fence part way as there is a gap beneath.
If my are trying to claim a bit I cross but am not occupying can I not plant something to establish sharing or can the tresspassers (over the residual freeholders land) stop me as they are using it predominantly?
It is still open.
This is beginningto make more sense, slowly. So the triangle of land is still owned by thefreeholder?
Are the steps atthe fat end of the triangle?
Have they indeedoccupied the land for 10 years or more?
Have you occupiedit. During that time?
Is the freeholderbothered?
both contending properties are now freeholders...but the residual freeholder (who previously owned the whole lot) RETAINS (probably relunctantly): 1) the garage fore-court, 2) the registered communal path, 3) the unregistered path to the back of each garage and 4) this triangle (which includes (3) above.
The freeholder of my property, a friend, has incorporated the lease, which you have seen(now locked but maybe they'd let you in?) into his upgraded freehold. The other neighbour claims their lease was lost and it is unmentioned in their freehold, by error of land reg their lease was not registered (it was prob the same as mine). The issue of mistake is with josh.
There is a set of steps at the far end intended to give my neighbour access to her garage (though they are cutting through behind us). There was a piece of stone which formed a step up onto the wider part of the triangle base. I sent you a pic of that lay out and a pic of the blocking off trellis thereafter.
The residual freeholder is expectant that we will resolve this between ourselves....having been stung elsewhere...and has refused to get involved.
I do not know what happened before me but there was an overgrown bush which another leaseholder wanted cut down. It had not blocked the way entirely as I had got thro and had been told by the LR that I had an easement from his deduction of the lease.
I regularly circulated around the area.
The raised bit was blocked off by fencing in 2003 expressly to stop me. The lower path has remained open and gives me access...but I wish to resume going via the way I could when I came here in 1999. ..since after 12 years of occupation the access via the end steps could be closed off as they have title at that end.
I needyou to do me a favour, please. Can you do me a big plan of the area inquestion, so I can see what is where because it is difficult for me to see whois trying to get access over what or where the steps are or where the gate andthe catch is that you have to put your hand over looking at such a tiny plan?
ok sorry for the difficulty.
Hope you and sooty et al are all well.
Could I impose upon you to send me the blue (live) links to HMCS forms for wales
Thank you so much...but could you possibly send a 'live' link (the blue script connecting me direct) ?
Many many thanks indeed
All I do is put the form number into that link. Doesn't itwork? You might have to cut and paste into yr browser to get this http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/FormFinder.do
This is what it gives me.
There is no 402
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
I now have an application notice and an application for an injunction.
Also notes to complete ...no idea what the other (402) was supposed to be.
So an injunction stops time running? That is the correct way to interrupt another's claim to land in which one has an interest?
Asthis thread has gone over the usual Just Answer length by many posts, I nolonger get notification that you are waiting. So If I don't happen to notice, Imight not reply for some length of time
Aninjunction does whatever it is that you have applied for an injunction for.
So, ifsomeone else is using the land, it stops them using it to pending determinationregarding their application at a land tribunal.
Itcould stop them chopping a tree down moving or moving a fence.
Injunctionscan be interim or permanent. So it could be a temporary measure pending a fullhearing or it could tell someone to stop doing it full stop.
It canalso compel people to do things such as, if they have removed a fence, feedback.
Injunctionsis whole legal subject on it's own
is it maybe unwise to include a third person on the same form of injunction as the primary subject?
maybe I should first write asking them to desist?
Always ask them to cease and desist 1st.
On a different note:
I took one of the cats to the vets theday before yesterday.
This is Smudge, a black and white catwith no tail that I got from rescue about three or four years ago.
We don't know how he lost his tail andit wasn't docked because the vet said that if he had an anaesthetic to removethe tail (perhaps because of trauma) they would have put his nuts off at the sametime and he was not nutless at that time.
We don't know who he belonged to buthe was found tied to a fence with an electrical wire that had cut deep into hisneck.
He has always been very timid butlikes being stroked and tickled under the chin but lacerates your hands if youtry to pick him up.
He is short hair but lately he has notbeen cleaning himself and his first has gone in lumps and his mouth has beendirty. Signs of bad teeth, although his breath wasn't anything out of theordinary and he was eating although sometimes when he was eating he did turnhis head on one side as though he was chewing on one side of his mouth.
Anyway, I took him to the vets day beforeyesterday and he has some gum disease and some Tartar and a couple of teeththat needed removing so he stayed in the night before last night to have thatdone yesterday today.
I had a phone call from the vetsyesterday afternoon and there is a lot of tenderness under his tongue and whichthey think is a tumour.
The prognosis is not good and I willhave the result of the biopsy in a week. The vet said not to hold my breathbecause she has seen enough of these in her time to be almost certain it is a malignanttumour but she wanted to be sure before putting him to sleep, on the off chancethat it was just the spread of the gum disease. I think the writing is on thewall for poor Smudge.
She said that if it is malignant, thenwithin weeks, he will find difficulty eating and it would not be fair put himthrough that and wait that long. I must admit, his "personal hygiene"and his general visual persona has gone down the tubes in the last couple ofweeks although he has been as bright as a button otherwise. The difficulty ofcourse is having to put a cat to sleep which outwardly looks fine but isinwardly extremely poorly, and will be extremely poorly outwardly if things areleft to go their natural course.
Ironically enough, he has never eatenas much as he did yesterday. He ate five pouches of food!
Anyway, that was my yesterday.
Oh dear L, I am so sorry.
This is a difficult call for you and of course you must decide what to do. Are you in any way relunctant or ambivalent about taking his Life?
I don't want to comment if you are clear about how to proceed and would not wish to shake your resolve about such a difficult task. It would be unhelpful. But if you were to invite my modest thoughts on the matter I would share them.
Thankyou. I love them all dearly but would not want them to suffer.
I willknow when the time is right.
Atthis stage, while he is bright and eating he is fine. When he starts tonoticeably go downhill, that is the time. At that stage, I would not hesitateto make the decision.
To behonest, if the result had been certain when they took the biopsy and he was underanaesthetic for his teeth, I would have told them to let him go then. But it isn't fair if there is small chance it isn't malignant
Fingerscrossed it's negative, but I am not putting money on it
oh good luck with the results. I shall be on tender hooks (is that the correct expression?)
My applic for injunction has been returned to me. I must tick boxes...help
- by applic in pending proceedings
- under stat prov
- under part 8 CPR
also does it raise issues under human rights act 1998?
or none of the above. I ticked nothing but applic returned to me for completion.
How is Smudge?
Still bright and breezy?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).