CGD Ltd CAA approved
I am pleased to announce that, following a 4 day course in Rugby, CGD Ltd has successfully completed and passed the CAA course required to fly a Small Unmanned Vehicle (SUV) commercially. The certificate, known as PfCO or ‘Permission for Commercial Operation’, is essentially an award by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) recognising that CGD Ltd has successfully demonstrated that it can fly an SUV responsibly and safely.
To do this CGD Ltd had to demonstrate that it understood the law surrounding the flying of SUVs and how to operate in the air alongside planes, helicopters, gliders etc; undertake map reading skills, looking for hazards in the viscinity of any proposed project; look at and understand weather systems and also give a practical demontration of its ability to fly a SUV.
A friend found this article in the Times this week. It’s a report on a boundary dispute case. I’m not sure I fully understand what went on here as the judgement seems to have gone against the injured party. Maybe we don’t have the complete story? And this is a lesson in itself. In order to make a correct judgement, we must make every effort to get the complete story. In terms of boundary investigations this means gathering as much information as possible and understanding its worth. So many ‘so-called’ boundary surveyors make a judgement on the position of a boundary based on limited information. And many surveyors don’t seem to understand the quality or usefulness of the data they have. Recently I was involved in a case where a surveyor had based his whole report, such that it was, on scaling dimensions from Ordnance Survey maps and Google Aerial photos. It is a worry to me that the public are being poorly advised.
I would like to understand a bit more about the case mentioned above. And I would like boundary surveyors to understand how important it is to gather the correct information and understand the worth of that information in determing the correct position of a boundary.
The article also highlights the costs of getting embroiled in a boundary dispute.
Cystic Fibrosis (CF)
WE DID IT!!
A number of us managed to complete the 40 mile/65km walk. A very tough day but a charity worh suffering for!
make a donation to this great cause.
Having been asked to review the boundaries of a property near Evesham, Worcestershire, we discovered that the Land Registry plan did not reflect what the client occupied. Was this a boundary problem? Or a Land Registry issue?
Conveyance wrongly drawn
The client has lived at the property for many years, originally renting from Wychavon District Council before purchasing the property in 1993. The property is in a very rural location, and back in 1993 there were no hedges, walls, fences or buildings to help in drawing the correct boundaries of the property. As a result, the conveyance plan was drawn wrongly. The back garden was orientated slightly wrongly. Land Registry correctly registered the land shown on the conveyance but the land registered was not the land occupied by my client for all those years. After corresponding with Land Registry, we were very pleased to persuade them to change the record and show the registered land being what had been occupied rather than what was shown on the conveyance.
A quick look at the Land Registry plans of neighbouring land made it abundantly clear that this is what had happened and an accurate topographic survey confirmed this as the case.
CGD Ltd were pleased to be able to help in this and, with the help of Land Registry, give our client the surety of knowing that the land occupied is accurately reflected by the Land Registry.
I have been researching the boundaries of a piece of land in Worcestershire and came upon this map attched to a lease plan. I was very interested and somewhat amused to note that the orientation is wrong. The north point is facing east!
I used to think, maybe naively, that things were different in the ‘good old days’ and that mistakes could not be made. I was wrong.
I recently received the following email.
‘We are in the process of settling the dispute and the second and third defendants have agreed that the boundary is where our client believes it to be i.e. where you plotted the boundary. We have advised our client to have a boundary agreement with attached plan annexed to the Court Order to be filed with the Court and registered at the Land Registry and therefore require a Land Registry-compliant plan. I note that you have a topographic survey annexed to your expert report but I assume this is not Land Registry compliant. Please could you confirm?’