The problem is making sure it [the letter] goes to the landowner., as the tenant may say yes without realising they can't legally give you permission [...] Never having been lucky enough to find anything which comes under the Treasure Act this has never been a problem, but you could find yourself in the position of finding the next big hoard and not being able to claim your half because you only had the tenants permission. Land Agents are different to tenants, as they work for the landowner. As a countryside officer working for a council I could legally sign on their behalf, but the tenants couldn't."Timesearch" gives the impression that he thinks not having permission from the landowner only becomes important when a detectorist finds something which comes under the Treasure Act and "not being able to claim your half". This is precisely the sort of attitude towards the appropriation of ownership of artefacts which Farmer Brown is talking about over on Heritage Journal. This is disgraceful, and you would have thought that seventeen years outreach by the fifteen-million pound PAS would have sorted this out by now.
It was also pointed out to me that on this blog I have already discussed the views of another detectorist from the Walsall region who has 27 years experience as a "local authority countryside officer" who was asking about artefact hunting on environmental stewardship land. See my discussion here (PACHI Sunday, 26 February 2012, 'Focus on Metal Detecting: Artefact Hunting on Environmental Stewardship Land'). Are these two gentlemen one and the same?