Can landowners be liable for damage caused by trees that fall onto railway infrastructure?

Bald Rick said:

Nope, neither. The owners simply didn’t want the tree felled, despite being told it was in trouble. (Ash dieback, AIUI).

For clarity, NR surveys trees within and outside the boundary that can affect the line. Where the tree poses a potential risk due to it’s health and/or position, then if it is in the boundary it will be removed. If it is outside the fence then the neighbour is contacted, advising them of their responsibility and liability. (I’m sure that as taxpayers, you wouldn’t want to be on the hook for the bill of tree management for every lineside neighbour). If it gets to the point of an immediate safety issue, then (usually) emergency arrangements are invoked.

However, occasionally, a tree that has been assessed as needing attention but is not an immediate safety issue can become one in a rather short space of time.

Click to expand...

I guess the difference being made is that the "local distribution company" (which I am not sure is the same as your energy provider) will come and pay for it if required. If it's the infrastructure provider, and its nationalised, then it's ultimately the taxpayer. But I suppose Network Rail won't do the same is the argument being made.

So of course some people would rather just say "nope" and let it be somebody else's problem. And it appears that Network Rail then have to go through the local council to ensure action is taken. All of this will no doubt take a bit of time.

Horizon22 said:

I guess the difference being made is that the "local distribution company" (which I am not sure is the same as your energy provider) will come and pay for it if required. If it's the infrastructure provider, and its nationalised, then it's ultimately the taxpayer. But I suppose Network Rail won't do the same is the argument being made.

Click to expand...

Yep, that is exactly the point. The local distribution company's approach to me was conciliatory: we have assessed that your tree poses a problem to us, and so we are prepared to do the work. Whereas NR's approach seems to be almost confrontational: we have assessed that your tree poses a problem to us, you must do something about it. No wonder it gets some people's backs up.

Yes, the electricity company does end up paying for work that the landowner should be responsible for. But it probably saves a lot of money in court disputes and the like.

The person who has felled and pruned other trees for me, refused to tackle the trees that needed a road closure to deal with. I should expect that many tree surgeons would likewise refuse to tackle trees immediately adjacent to a railway line, particularly an electrified line. But NR seems to leave it all up to the landowner to cope with.

Belperpete said:

Yes, the electricity company does end up paying for work that the landowner should be responsible for. But it probably saves a lot of money in court disputes and the like.

Click to expand...

I assume the electricity company is not paying any rent for crossing private land. Question, does a land owner own any of the space above his or her land. Electricity company complaining about tress encroaching on cables makes me think who the hell are they to complain. Outside my house is a single telegraph pole that feeds cable to houses on both sides of the street. The cables to four houses cross my front garden. My street has just gone full fibre so some of the houses are not getting fibre cable installed, one of the cables up against a branch of the tree. Concerned that in high winds the branch waving about might bring the cable down I ask some of the installers if that could happen. They said no the cable is made strong enough not to be brought down. I hope they were right.

Belperpete said:

The local distribution company's approach to me was conciliatory: we have assessed that your tree poses a problem to us, and so we are prepared to do the work. Whereas NR's approach seems to be almost confrontational: we have assessed that your tree poses a problem to us, you must do something about it. No wonder it gets some people's backs up.

Click to expand...

The difference being that NR has a LOT more neighbours with trees. Indeed more neighbours than any other landowner in the country.

Bald Rick said:

The difference being that NR has a LOT more neighbours with trees. Indeed more neighbours than any other landowner in the country.

Click to expand...

Curse of being a very long and narrow landowner with a huge surface area I guess!

themiller said:

If I said to NR that I was going into their land to prune my trees and that it would take ‘z’ amount of time as and when I was available to carry it out, I think that they’d soon have an injunction preventing me from trespassing on operational land. In that case, I’d put the onus back on them and let them cover the costs!

Click to expand...

A right to access onto a neighbouring property to maintain your property (eg walls and fences) exists within Gail on Easments. But as I said in the above post that access would not be straightforward and, as far as the railway would be concerned, it may be easier and cheaper for them to do it and bear the cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2026 ==

Kevin51 said:

I assume the electricity company is not paying any rent for crossing private land. Question, does a land owner own any of the space above his or her land. Electricity company complaining about tress encroaching on cables makes me think who the hell are they to complain. Outside my house is a single telegraph pole that feeds cable to houses on both sides of the street. The cables to four houses cross my front garden. My street has just gone full fibre so some of the houses are not getting fibre cable installed, one of the cables up against a branch of the tree. Concerned that in high winds the branch waving about might bring the cable down I ask some of the installers if that could happen. They said no the cable is made strong enough not to be brought down. I hope they were right.

Click to expand...

Yes, the electricity distribution company does pay rent for running cables over your property. I don’t know the situation with telecoms lines over your land.

themiller said:

Yes, the electricity distribution company does pay rent for running cables over your property. I don’t know the situation with telecoms lines over your land.

Click to expand...

Have never heard they do. Don't know if the oversailing rights only applies to original (GPO now OpenReach) installations.

Kevin51 said:

My street has just gone full fibre so some of the houses are not [?now?] getting fibre cable installed, one of the cables up against a branch of the tree. Concerned that in high winds the branch waving about might bring the cable down I ask some of the installers if that could happen. They said no the cable is made strong enough not to be brought down. I hope they were right.

Click to expand...

Maybe so but the outer sheath will eventually get abraded and then water will get in. Cable companies (first TV now telecoms) have always had very poor installation standards, only this a.m. I was noticing various unprotected cables emerging through tarmac on my way to the paper shop.

Cowboy industry, subcontracting to lowest bidder with non-existent training or inspection. Sound familiar? Currently ECO4 external insulation, next up Housing Association heat pumps.

sharpener said:

Have never heard they do. Don't know if the oversailing rights only applies to original (GPO now OpenReach) installations.


Maybe so but the outer sheath will eventually get abraded and then water will get in. Cable companies (first TV now telecoms) have always had very poor installation standards, only this a.m. I was noticing various unprotected cables emerging through tarmac on my way to the paper shop.

Cowboy industry, subcontracting to lowest bidder with non-existent training or inspection. Sound familiar? Currently ECO4 external insulation, next up Housing Association heat pumps.

Click to expand...

As long as they don't blame me when the cable fails. Unrelated story but shows what an uncaring industry telecomms is. Went to post a letter a few weeks back and right next to the post box was a cabinet with the door flapping open and a load of fibre cable connections in it exposed. There was a phone number to call if the cabinet was damaged. Phoned the number but unobtainable. It was a Virgin cabinet. A week or so later they were people doing something in a manhole in the other side of the road. They were connecting comms cables so I pointed to the cabinet on the other side of the road with the door flapping open. Oh that is Virgin there we are Dee Gee or something like that so nothing to do with them. So thinks to my self well it is nothing to do with me either. I am not a Virgin customer so why should I care. I just thought that they might have some industry hot line. A couple of East Europeans barely able to speak English who were by now getting quite stroppy. I left them to what they were doing and the door on the Virgin cabinet still flapping open.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2026 ==

themiller said:

A right to access onto a neighbouring property to maintain your property (eg walls and fences) exists within Gail on Easments. But as I said in the above post that access would not be straightforward and, as far as the railway would be concerned, it may be easier and cheaper for them to do it and bear the cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2026 ==


Yes, the electricity distribution company does pay rent for running cables over your property. I don’t know the situation with telecoms lines over your land.

Click to expand...

I was only thinking to remove a tree that was close the the railway and causing them concern would need a closure to deal with the tree. So just have NR put it on there to do list and during the next schedule closure have NR deal with it using what ever powers they have and just deal with it themselves. Is it worth arguing about if it is a safety issue.

Kevin51 said:

Unrelated story but shows what an uncaring industry telecomms is. Went to post a letter a few weeks back and right next to the post box was a cabinet with the door flapping open and a load of fibre cable connections in it exposed. There was a phone number to call if the cabinet was damaged. Phoned the number but unobtainable. It was a Virgin cabinet.

Click to expand...

Yes. A common street cabinet design round here has a very poor mechanical connection between f/glass cabinet and the frame which is bolted to the pavement. So they have all come apart at the join and are leaning over exposing the cables.

I was once walking home and smelled gas outside a big brick-built shed labelled "Metering Station". So I rang the number and was amazed it was answered, and then tried to give them the Asset Number from the signage.

However the call-taker said she had to read out a whole load of spiel about not using light switches etc, could not understand I was standing in fresh air and about 1/2 mile from my home. Gave up in the end.

Bald Rick said:

The difference being that NR has a LOT more neighbours with trees. Indeed more neighbours than any other landowner in the country.

Click to expand...

You may be right about comparison with landowners, as power distribution companies generally don't own the land on which their poles are sited. However, I find it hard to believe that NR has more neighbours with trees than a local power distribution company, particularly those serving rural areas. Where I live there must be hundreds of miles of pole routes running alongside roads, over farm land, etc.

Belperpete said:

However, I find it hard to believe that NR has more neighbours with trees than a local power distribution company, particularly those serving rural areas.

Click to expand...

NR has the most neighbours of any UK landowner.

I would have thought that for Network rail just to say to the landowner
"that tree has a problem do you mind if we sort it" then doing the job would not work out much more expensive than, chasing up the owner and then checking the work has been satisfactorily done.

Bald Rick said:

NR has the most neighbours of any UK landowner.

Click to expand...

What has being a landowner got to do with it? The issue is not how many neighbours they have adjacent to their land, but how many neighbours they have adjacent to their infrastructure. The local power distribution companies own very little land, but have hundreds if not thousands of miles of pole route with neighbouring trees. I would be very surprised if NR have to deal with anything like the same numbers of neighbours.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Aug 2026 ==

philthetube said:

I would have thought that for Network rail just to say to the landowner
"that tree has a problem do you mind if we sort it" then doing the job would not work out much more expensive than, chasing up the owner and then checking the work has been satisfactorily done.

Click to expand...

And the landowner would be far more likely to agree to it being done.

philthetube said:

I would have thought that for Network rail just to say to the landowner
"that tree has a problem do you mind if we sort it" then doing the job would not work out much more expensive than, chasing up the owner and then checking the work has been satisfactorily done.

Click to expand...

Last time I lived next to a railway and had Network Rail doing overnight works, one of our neighbours got out of bed at 1am and asked if the contractors wouldn't mind taking a chainsaw to one of his overgrown trees and they were happy to oblige. Whether they should I don't know.

styles said:

Last time I lived next to a railway and had Network Rail doing overnight works, one of our neighbours got out of bed at 1am and asked if the contractors wouldn't mind taking a chainsaw to one of his overgrown trees and they were happy to oblige. Whether they should I don't know.

Click to expand...

Potentially an issue if the neighbour was seeking to get around a tree preservation order.

Wolfie said:

Potentially an issue if the neighbour was seeking to get around a tree preservation order.

Click to expand...

I don't know, may be just taking advantage of the opportunity. 20 years ago there were contractors laying new pipes in my street, gas or water I can't remember which. I got a very good rate for taking down the front wall and digging out the front lawn so I could put put block pavers down. Also dug out a pit for a soak away, took all the spoil away and did a dropped kerb. Contractors must do very nicely doing odd cash jobs for residents.

Kevin51 said:

I don't know, may be just taking advantage of the opportunity. 20 years ago there were contractors laying new pipes in my street, gas or water I can't remember which. I got a very good rate for taking down the front wall and digging out the front lawn so I could put put block pavers down. Also dug out a pit for a soak away, took all the spoil away and did a dropped kerb. Contractors must do very nicely doing odd cash jobs for residents.

Click to expand...

I'm absolutely sure that they do.... Probably on the clock for Network Rail too.

Kevin51 said:

I don't know, may be just taking advantage of the opportunity. 20 years ago there were contractors laying new pipes in my street, gas or water I can't remember which. I got a very good rate for taking down the front wall and digging out the front lawn so I could put put block pavers down. Also dug out a pit for a soak away, took all the spoil away and did a dropped kerb. Contractors must do very nicely doing odd cash jobs for residents.

Click to expand...

Did they check that you had permission to put a dropped kerb in?

AlterEgo said:

A tree is much more prone to falling than a structure. Nobody is arguing for special privileges; it has been esablished that it is already the law that all land owners have a duty to ensure they do not cause nuisance or spoil the enjoyment of occupiers of adjacent land. If I have a tree which is up against a boundary fence of a railway cutting then I may be responsible for any damage or worse that it causes if it falls onto the railway.

Click to expand...

If it was me, I’d be very wary of having a tree on my property which could land on the railway were it to fall, especially if it could reach a point where it could be in the path of a train.

In a country where we have become so aware of risk, I always find it surprising how blasé people are towards the risks posed by trees, and this particularly includes councils. I enjoy trees as much as anyone else, however there are plenty which are simply in inappropriate places or have been allowed to grow too large for their location. This is likely to become an increasing issue as many planted 100-150 years ago are now reaching a point of being past their best, yet there’s a vocal core of people who object to the prospect of any tree being removed.