H&S 3 yearly tree inspection

[Stuart Phillips]

Reading through the content of the judgement should be enough to give anyone a moment for reflection before they run out and volunteer to undertake tree inspections. If nothing else, to check the professional indemnity cover in their insurance.

 

It also highlights for me that inspection can be far from straightforward.

 

It is also worth a look at the report of the Bracknell Forest Incident of 2014, whereby a tree had been inspected two prior to it failing, sadly resulting in a fatality. (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Warren-2014-0330.pdf)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

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.

 

In true AT fashion, the OP appears to have satisfied their quest for opinions (tick) and the debate continues unabated. Hopefully providing benefit to onlookers, goofers, the mildly interested and the actively engaged.

 

Without wishing to be personally confrontational, there are elements of the thread, and the post above, which may benefit from further discussion.

 

Firstly, I'm not convinced the Cavanagh v Witley judgement provides appropriate / suitable reference to support the arguments being presented for pre-requisite qualifications for tree inspections:

 

Para 48 - "...I am also satisfied that Mr S had the necessary experience and expertise to undertake a survey of this kind… "

 

It appears to be accepted that, (to quote ) as a "tree surgeon", he had the experience (supposedly) but was idle or negligent in undertaking the duty. That's quite far removed from assuming the judgement defines necessary competences - or that, if it is accepted that the judgement defines appropriate competences, then it must follow that "tree surgeons" are appropriately qualified (depending upon the level of inspection) because that is what the judgement found.

 

What might be defined as the necessary experience did not appear to be defined in the judgement, nor was any reference made to NTSG document which clearly DOES define it.

 

As such, I think the judgement is being misrepresented in this respect. Perhaps not surprisingly, it's so rare that a meaty document is available.

 

From post above "...the source of ongoing confusion about whether tree surgeons should be doing tree surveys..."

 

Is there confusion? If you think so, are you suggesting the contributors to NTSG are the confused?? It seems quite clear.

 

The difficulty I'd have with agreeing (in full) with the position that surveys are for surveyors and cutting is for cutters is (a) it's not what is supported by credible industry documentation and (b) to support the premise that only the god like academics, desk monkeys and keyboard technicians might be worthy of assessing trees is to present a potential barrier to a large majority of very enthusiastic, highly engaged and broadly experienced "operators" within the tree / arb world who might be given to believing surveying / inspecting is beyond their capacity.

 

Today's cutters and climbers may well be tomorrow's surveyors and consultants so its not a particularly progressive approach to take.

 

Noting of course the cautionary detail that (i) all things must be within (or just at the limits) of the knowledge / capability of the practitioner - how else might a person raise their game, (ii) that conflict of surveying jobs for one's self could give rise to sharp practice and that (iii) negligence, laziness or incompetence are matters for individuals rather than parameters that might tarnish or restrict whole sections of an industry - that fact is quite clearly defined in the judgement

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Reading through the content of the judgement should be enough to give anyone a moment for reflection before they run out and volunteer to undertake tree inspections. If nothing else, to check the professional indemnity cover in their insurance.

 

It also highlights for me that inspection can be far from straightforward.

 

It is also worth a look at the report of the Bracknell Forest Incident of 2014, whereby a tree had been inspected two prior to it failing, sadly resulting in a fatality. (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Warren-2014-0330.pdf)

 

Again, without wishing to raise an argument seemingly just for arguments sake, I'd suggest that the judgement does not (in itself) provide justification for PI insurance. In fact, it's quite the opposite since the character in the dock found he didn't have cover and still had a judgement in his favour (albeit with stark criticisms.)

 

But putting that aside as a relatively minor discussion point...

 

Just read the report attached above. It seems to suggest that drive-by "inspections" by poorly trained (undefined) staff is unwise.

 

Nothing at all to disagree with there!

 

But, again, that's a world away from the guidance in NTSG...

[daltontrees]

In true AT fashion, the OP appears to have satisfied their quest for opinions (tick) and the debate continues unabated. Hopefully providing benefit to onlookers, goofers, the mildly interested and the actively engaged.

 

Without wishing to be personally confrontational, there are elements of the thread, and the post above, which may benefit from further discussion.

 

Firstly, I'm not convinced the Cavanagh v Witley judgement provides appropriate / suitable reference to support the arguments being presented for pre-requisite qualifications for tree inspections:

 

Para 48 - "...I am also satisfied that Mr S had the necessary experience and expertise to undertake a survey of this kind… "

 

It appears to be accepted that, (to quote ) as a "tree surgeon", he had the experience (supposedly) but was idle or negligent in undertaking the duty. That's quite far removed from assuming the judgement defines necessary competences - or that, if it is accepted that the judgement defines appropriate competences, then it must follow that "tree surgeons" are appropriately qualified (depending upon the level of inspection) because that is what the judgement found.

 

What might be defined as the necessary experience did not appear to be defined in the judgement, nor was any reference made to NTSG document which clearly DOES define it.

 

As such, I think the judgement is being misrepresented in this respect. Perhaps not surprisingly, it's so rare that a meaty document is available.

 

From post above "...the source of ongoing confusion about whether tree surgeons should be doing tree surveys..."

 

Is there confusion? If you think so, are you suggesting the contributors to NTSG are the confused?? It seems quite clear.

 

The difficulty I'd have with agreeing (in full) with the position that surveys are for surveyors and cutting is for cutters is (a) it's not what is supported by credible industry documentation and (b) to support the premise that only the god like academics, desk monkeys and keyboard technicians might be worthy of assessing trees is to present a potential barrier to a large majority of very enthusiastic, highly engaged and broadly experienced "operators" within the tree / arb world who might be given to believing surveying / inspecting is beyond their capacity.

 

Today's cutters and climbers may well be tomorrow's surveyors and consultants so its not a particularly progressive approach to take.

 

Noting of course the cautionary detail that (i) all things must be within (or just at the limits) of the knowledge / capability of the practitioner - how else might a person raise their game, (ii) that conflict of surveying jobs for one's self could give rise to sharp practice and that (iii) negligence, laziness or incompetence are matters for individuals rather than parameters that might tarnish or restrict whole sections of an industry - that fact is quite clearly defined in the judgement

 

The 'confusion' is here on Arbtalk, regular posts asking about whether individuals can move into surveying and what qualifications are needed. Cavanagh is nothing new, as I believe I said. Fundamentally rhe term 'tree surgeon' is a bullshit one, an illusion of grandeur for anyone that can buy a saw in B&Q. If the term was restricted and defined, we might be able to say wheter a tree surgeon is typically competent to do tree risk assessemnts. I am not using the term 'surveys', since as I have already said there is a vast difference between looking at trees for defects and making compentent decisions about what should be done about those defects. I prefer the term 'risk assessment', 'survey' means nothing really, and is dangerous in its ambiguity.

 

Personally I feel NTSG was not necessary to address any of this, nor do I regularly refer to it as authoritative. But it does as I recall separate the roles of inspector, risk assessor and risk manager. Quite rightly too.

 

I've nothing against people bettering themselves and getting into consultancy work. I did it, and in some respects my practical climbing and cutting experience which I top up regularly makes me better than the academic consultant. But suddenly declaring oneself to be a tree surveyor is like suddenly deciding you are a tree surgeon, a recipe for you or others getting hurt, sued, or playing a heinous part in denuding the landscape of trees unnecessarily. Getting away with it doesn't mean it's right.

 

We don't disagree substantially, I just say there is no clear overlap of tree surgeons and competent inspectors. No need then to defend or debase either genus.