H&S 3 yearly tree inspection

[RobRainford]

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.

 

thanks for that Gary, very interesting.

 

Will shape how we manage some of our risk zones and tree surveys for the future.

Edited May 16, 2017 by David Humphries

[Gary Prentice]

I can't remember who commented or where I read it, but it was noted that the common sense risk management document was remarkedly absent from the proceedings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited May 16, 2017 by David Humphries

[daltontrees]

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.

 

This comes up about once a month on Arbtalk. Set the bravado of others aside and follow this bottom line. If you're not insured don't do it. And don't do it just because you have insurance, see what the limitations and pre-qualifications are in the insurance cover. It may say that you're not covered if you're not qualified. Insurers will take your money, and drop you like a stone if you claim and haven't complied with the policy.

 

A bit like getting car insurance, not having a license and expecting them to pay up if you kill someone on the roads.

 

A lot of expereinced tree surgeons are good at spotting tree defects, our lives depend on it. But there's a lot more to tree risk assessment than spotting defects. A lot lot more. A lot of reports I see are pure rubbish, the tree surgeon recommends unnecessary work, putting costs on the customer/client and causing unnecessary or premature loss of trees. Sometimes to get work, sometimes to cover their rear ends by erring on the ridiculously safe side, some out of pure ignorance.

 

I have more than once (and that's just this month) overturned the recommendations of tree surgeons' reports, saving clients thousands of pounds. All backed not by me guaranteeing that the trees won't cause harm but by striking the right balance on their legal duty of care, giving them a credible defence in the event of the unforeseeable.

[David Humphries]

Good post Jules

 

 

 

 

.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I can't remember who commented or where I read it, but it was noted that the common sense risk management document was remarkedly absent from the proceedings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/106475-cavanagh-v-witley-parish-council-tree-inspection-regimes.html

[wicklamulla]

Some bloody good replies here folks, Thanks for taking the time to put pen to errr fingers to keys.

 

Rob Rainford & Daltontrees are I think hitting the nail on the head and seeing as i'm a cautious character i'll not be doing this inspection.

 

I will however consider some more training.

[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.

 

Maybe, with some more detail of the actual request (sanitised for commercial sensitivities perhaps), it would be easier to comment on appropriate level of competences necessary.

 

 

Who can make informal observations?

 

People with good local knowledge and familiarity with local trees are suited to carrying out informal observations. Typically, this does not require a tree specialist, but rather those closely associated with a property, such as the owner, gardener, other employee or agent, who understands the way the property is used (areas most and least frequented) and the extent of the danger, should a tree be found that is falling apart or uprooting. Reports of problems by staff or members of the public are a fundamental part of informal observations and should be acted upon.

 

Who can make a formal inspection?

 

Formal inspections do not necessarily require specific qualifications but do require

general tree knowledge and the ability to recognise normal and abnormal appearance and growth for thelocality. Inspectors need the capacity to assess

approximate tree height and falling distance from the tree to the area of use and

when to request a detailed inspection. They also need an ability to recognise

obviously visible signs of serious ill health or significant structural problems, such as substantial fractured branches or a rocking root plate which, were they to cause tree failure, could result in serious harm.

 

Who can do a detailed inspection?

 

Detailed inspections require an appropriately competent person, experienced in the field of investigation that is to be carried out. Whoever is commissioning the detailed inspection should satisfy themselves as to the suitability of the inspector’s qualifications, experience and professional indemnity and public liability insurance. Professional bodies who can offer guidance are listed in the contacts section at the end of this document. A specialist involved in conducting a detailed tree inspection should be able to demonstrate the reasonable basis for allocating risks according to priority, and identify cost-effective ways of managing those tree-related risks.

 

Common Sense Risk Management of Trees (2011, 51 & 52)

 

Training / certification / insurance certainly for Detailed Inspections, not necessarily so for informal / formal inspections, at least according to NTSG...

[Gary Prentice]

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/106475-cavanagh-v-witley-parish-council-tree-inspection-regimes.html

 

Knew someone had raised the issue somewhere.

[daltontrees]

Couple of points of clarification that I think are relevant and may help onlookers on this subject.

 

In the Cavanagh case, the judge said that that, "on the balance of probability, Mr Shepherd's inspection was carried out negligently". It did not say that this was because he was only a tree surgeon. I expect the court's perception of his competence was tainted by him having been considerably less than honest in his evidence. In the end he was lucky to have escaped because his negligence by fluke didn't affect the outcome of the case.

 

But this case, although it didn't make any new law, was useful becasue it shows what courts do and don't look at in terms of inspector competence. And I didn't think any of it is inconsistent with the advice that I personally have given to the OP.

 

kevinjohnsonmbe's post covers the various levels of competence of inspectors. And I see now the source of ongoing confusion about whether tree surgeons should be doing tree surveys. You don't need to be qualified to inspect trees, but if you find something that is an ordinary cause for concern, you need to be qualified in some way to make decisions about what to do, unless the appropriate action is screamingly obvious. But certainly my clients don't want to appoint an amateur and have him come back with recommendations that some of the trees he has looked at be checked properly by a professional. They want one person, overqualified to look for defects but qualified to know what to do when they find them. I think that a lot of 'tree surgeons' are good enough to identify defects but are rarely (in my direct experience) able to give objective proportionate advice on risk management. On the other hand, tree consultants are probably guilty of looking harder than they need to if there are no obvious defects.

 

That's why unqualified tree surgeons shouldn't be doing tree surveys that are anything more than spotting obvious defects and passing these on to someone qualified. I believe tree owners want a one-stop-shop service that includes risk assessment competence and that it is as efficient in the end to have overkill on some of the trees for the beenfit of getting the full service on the few tree that need action.

 

In my embittered opinion, there are a lot less trees needing action that way round, as (amongst other things) the consultant has no financial interest in whether tree works are required.

 

A long post, I know, but I'm glad I've said it and I hope it helps someone get it.

[skyhuck]

Couple of points of clarification that I think are relevant and may help onlookers on this subject.

 

In the Cavanagh case, the judge said that that, "on the balance of probability, Mr Shepherd's inspection was carried out negligently". It did not say that this was because he was only a tree surgeon. I expect the court's perception of his competence was tainted by him having been considerably less than honest in his evidence. In the end he was lucky to have escaped because his negligence by fluke didn't affect the outcome of the case.

 

But this case, although it didn't make any new law, was useful becasue it shows what courts do and don't look at in terms of inspector competence. And I didn't think any of it is inconsistent with the advice that I personally have given to the OP.

 

kevinjohnsonmbe's post covers the various levels of competence of inspectors. And I see now the source of ongoing confusion about whether tree surgeons should be doing tree surveys. You don't need to be qualified to inspect trees, but if you find something that is an ordinary cause for concern, you need to be qualified in some way to make decisions about what to do, unless the appropriate action is screamingly obvious. But certainly my clients don't want to appoint an amateur and have him come back with recommendations that some of the trees he has looked at be checked properly by a professional. They want one person, overqualified to look for defects but qualified to know what to do when they find them. I think that a lot of 'tree surgeons' are good enough to identify defects but are rarely (in my direct experience) able to give objective proportionate advice on risk management. On the other hand, tree consultants are probably guilty of looking harder than they need to if there are no obvious defects.

 

That's why unqualified tree surgeons shouldn't be doing tree surveys that are anything more than spotting obvious defects and passing these on to someone qualified. I believe tree owners want a one-stop-shop service that includes risk assessment competence and that it is as efficient in the end to have overkill on some of the trees for the beenfit of getting the full service on the few tree that need action.

 

In my embittered opinion, there are a lot less trees needing action that way round, as (amongst other things) the consultant has no financial interest in whether tree works are required.

 

A long post, I know, but I'm glad I've said it and I hope it helps someone get it.

 

Can't really argue with that, makes good sense