H&S 3 yearly tree inspection

[wicklamulla]

Hello everyone,

 

 

I have a commercial customer who I have done work for on 2 previous occasions.

 

They have emailed asking me to quote on inspecting their trees from a Health & Safety perspective.

 

Now I have all the usual NPTC/LANTRA qualifications and relevant insurances enabling me to carry out cutting, climbing etc. I do not have any qualifications with regard to tree inspections, therefore I assume I cannot tender for this work?

 

I guess I need some more training if I want to provide this service.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Hello everyone,

 

 

I have a commercial customer who I have done work for on 2 previous occasions.

 

They have emailed asking me to quote on inspecting their trees from a Health & Safety perspective.

 

Now I have all the usual NPTC/LANTRA qualifications and relevant insurances enabling me to carry out cutting, climbing etc. I do not have any qualifications with regard to tree inspections, therefore I assume I cannot tender for this work?

 

I guess I need some more training if I want to provide this service.

 

 

Have a read of this:

 

Common Sense Risk Management of trees

 

http://ntsgroup.org.uk/guidance-publications/

 

Maybe you / they may be content with that level? An inspection by a knowledgable arborist with the ability to call in more specialised inspection for specific "features" that may be worthy of more detail.

 

If not, perhaps PTI and / or QTRA might be necessary?

[skyhuck]

You need to check your insurance covers you for selling advice.

 

Most policies these days have at least £500K "Professional indemnity", so provided you make it clear you are only carrying out a pretty basic inspection with clear parameters and no guarantee beyond this, I would have thought you would be on safe ground.

[RobRainford]

You have to prove competence if it went tits up, would you want to stand by chainsaw tickets as proof of competence for tree surveys?

 

There was a recent court ruling that's said a tree surgeon with no technical qualifications who carried out a survey wasn't competent. It found the council who employed him negligent.

 

It also said trees in high risk areas i.e. Roads should be surveyed every 18 months. Big implications for us at a housing trust with thousands of trees.

[woody paul]

I look at trees in my local church yard ever 2 years for the parish. I asked how much of a report they needed the said they were told a tree surgeon needed to look at them. Which I do but only from the ground as they will not pay for them to be climbed, on my report it is high lighted that it do from ground level and a more detailed inspection is need by climbing. Also the best report can not deem a tree safe so be carefull.

[skyhuck]

You have to prove competence if it went tits up, would you want to stand by chainsaw tickets as proof of competence for tree surveys?

 

There was a recent court ruling that's said a tree surgeon with no technical qualifications who carried out a survey wasn't competent. It found the council who employed him negligent.

 

It also said trees in high risk areas i.e. Roads should be surveyed every 18 months. Big implications for us at a housing trust with thousands of trees.

 

Have you a link?

 

What did he miss? Just because he was "not competent" does not mean all aren't. I recall another case where "experienced" foresters casting an eye over the trees was considered adequate.

[Mark J]

I think you're right. You'll have to hire someone in to do it this time. If it looks like you'll be getting more rquests like this, then as said ealier, it may be worth looking into doing a Professional Tree Inspection (PTI) course.

[RobRainford]

Have you a link?

 

What did he miss? Just because he was "not competent" does not mean all aren't. I recall another case where "experienced" foresters casting an eye over the trees was considered adequate.

 

Says there was root decay that was missed.

 

It also says the 3 yearly inspection cycle was flawed, but doing 2 surveys 11 and 8 years ago and nothing since then is asking for trouble.

 

The experience over qualifications is valid as you say and can be adequate a lot of the time, i suppose it depends who judges the cases when things go wrong.

 

I would only expect that arbs should know their limitations and speak to someone who does know when they are unsure. (I suppose thats a big section of this place!)

Tree Inspection Frequency case law 2017.pdf

[skyhuck]

Says there was root decay that was missed.

 

It also says the 3 yearly inspection cycle was flawed, but doing 2 surveys 11 and 8 years ago and nothing since then is asking for trouble.

 

The experience over qualifications is valid as you say and can be adequate a lot of the time, i suppose it depends who judges the cases when things go wrong.

 

I would only expect that arbs should know their limitations and speak to someone who does know when they are unsure. (I suppose thats a big section of this place!)

 

In your link the court did not find the tree surgeon "not competent" that was an assertion of the claimant. It was the 3 yearly inspections that were deemed by the court to be negligent, unless I'm missing something?

[Gary Prentice]

Have you a link?

 

What did he miss? Just because he was "not competent" does not mean all aren't. I recall another case where "experienced" foresters casting an eye over the trees was considered adequate.

 

The whole tree if his evidence in court is to be believed

 

His report to the Parish Council said 'No work', which apparently means 'you didn't give me a map, to identify the tree and therefore I haven't actually inspected it'

 

Fortunately, the expert witnesses (Mr O'Callahan & Jeremy Barrell IIRC)were of the opinion that the FFB was unlikely to have been present at the time that the inspection did or didn't take place, absolving the inspector of any liability.

 

 

Edit: May be wrong on the expert witnesses, but heres the judgement.

Cavanagh V Whitley - Judgment.pdf

Edited May 16, 2017 by David Humphries