Tree Removal - Owner is unwilling to pay anything towards the cost.

[openspaceman]

8 minutes ago, Anno said:

Any removal of the arisings without the owners consent could constitute an obscure form of theft known as 'conversion', unless the tree owner has a particular need for that material, it is unlikely they would make a complaint.

 

It is, therefore, perfectly legitimate to return the arisings to the neighbour. The material must be returned in such a way as not to cause damage or injury to avoid being sued. In practical terms, it must be advised that dumping the arisings back with the tree owner, although perfectly legal, may not be regarded as a neighbourly act and could lead to disputes.

 

 

I hold it only requires their assent and accepted practices would be to remove arisings from an arb job unless specifically asked not to. Conversion is a civil offence and arises in the sort of situation when you leave something with someone and then they dispose of it without your knowledge.

 

I think we'll have to disagree on this one

[daltontrees]

Couple of points here.

 

The 'theft' etc. issue is not relevant here, the tree is already on the neighbour's land and the arising will presumably land there.

 

There's only one question. What did the neighbour agree to? Did he agree to let his tree be cut dwn and all the stuff left on his land? I doubt it. If the customer got his permission to 'remove' the tree, I think most people would assume that means cut it down AND take it away.

 

All this nonsense about 'revenge'... it may seem an unfair situation for the customer to pay for the removal, but that's life, the tree owner is gambling on not having to pay out in negligence. The customer's assessment of the risk is greater, or as Steve aptly pointed out, the owner just can't afford the work just now. And people are often too proud to admit that and I have seen them adopt a fake argument so as not to admit they're skint.

 

I had a pensioner haggle me down from £38 to £35 for a hedge cutting job once, his neighbour was haranguing him abut it. He confided in me eventually, he had no pension, it was a matter of whether they ate that day or not.

 

So to the OP, yes it's unfair. Remove means remove. Probably best not to moralise. Crack on.

[Vespasian]

another way to look at the job is this..

 

When Smith125 agreed to do the job, what did he agree to do?..  did he price to remove the waste?.. I imagine he did..

 

end of story...

 

and by the way, over the years I've done a good few fence jobs..  you wouldn't believe the amount of people who agree to chip in and never get round to paying up.. whether they're skint or otherwise.   once the jobs done its a matter of sticking their heads in the sand and hoping it never gets mentioned..    

 

My ex agreed to chip in with the costs of her fence or the next doors fence depending on who was about to spend money.. the neighbour paid all the costs as he wanted it doin that year and not twenty odd years later if left to her..

Here an there I'd ask her if she'd chipped in yet with the fence considering how much nicer it made the garden look..

she'd put her head down shamefaced or threaten to knife me depending on her mood at the time...

like most people, she liked the fence but didn't like to pay for it...

I imagine the owner of the tree is in the same boat..

 

Somebody else's problem..

[jones]

cant believe this is even an issue.  The owner isn't the one that wants the tree removed.  I'd say hes being pretty amicable even letting the neighbour have their wishes.  Why should he have to pay for something he didn't necessarily want done?

[PC Treescapes]

Keep us posted on the eventualities, May be even pics of standing tree and any other stuffs like rottin bits
 
i do agree it could be just the owner can’t afford the bill, and the other party wants more light to there garden. 
Someone said to me once...
Theres always 2 sides to a story, and sometimes there are 3 sides
 
cheers

Three sides, their side, your side and the truth ;-)

[Steven P]

Quite simple in this case though, I guess you will have to chat to the neighbour about access to the tree, and while you are there, simply ask what they want to do with the tree afterwards. Simple.

 

Appreciating the legal arguments about who owns the tree, whether you can throw bits back or have to offer them back and so on, isn't it normal to ask the trees owner what to do with the tree?

[Mark Bolam]

It's simple good manners Steven.

[jaime bray]

i believe that its the miscellaneous provisions act that the local authority would use to ensure that owners of trees that are deemed dangerous get them removed at their cost.

 

I think the owner of the tree has duty of care under occupiers liability act to ensure visitors to and around their property are kept safe from injury or death. (not exact wording)

 

id say that depending on the condition of the tree, this would affect how soon the owner gets it down.

 

if failure is imminent then they would be prudent to remove asap.

 

in such circumstances, i find its often good to consider the mindset associated with TPO legislation pertaining to five day notices for tree removal.

 

is the tree rocking in its rootplate, or completely dead, is the main fork where the fungal brackets are- flexing under breezy weather, would you climb it or insist on a crane because its failure is so imminent. The actual time by which a tree can still stand after being condemned in a report can be considerably long.

 

its likely,(particulars depending) that your client has three choices, pay themselves for piece of mind, initiate proceedings under the miscellaneous provisions act, or leave it with the owner. The latter one being mindful in theknowledge that should anything happen then the tree owner will be in an indefensible position.

 

i.e they were informed by a competent tree inspector,(whos competency will be questioned in court) of the need to make safe/remove, however failed to act accordingly.

 

without a copy of the report, pictures of the tree, history of theconversation held its always difficult to comment in such instances.

 

i find, that as a third party, and conversing with professional knowledge, face to face, with owners of trees in such circumstances, often educates them enough for them to realise the severity of the situation and act with prudence.

 

never a nice one to get involved with, especially without consultancy case management fees being applied.

good luck.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The party that wants the tree removed would do well to recognise that the tree owner is content for the work to be undertaken.  That's often no small achievement and without it - it's staying where it is!

 

If I don't like the colour of your car, and I want you to change it, I'd expect to pay for the body shop and lash you up to a crate of your favourite tipple as a thank you for being so accommodating...

 

The tree condition report sounds like a red herring (unless it is in imminent, immediate and obvious potential of total catastrophic failure.  Anything less than that is only as necessary as is required to reduce / remove any parts that do actually present a tangible hazard.)

 

Is it the person that (a) wants the tree down or (b) wants the work of taking the tree down that provided the 'condition report / recommendation?'  Ummmmm.....

 

The person that wants the tree down has to make an assessment of how much they want the tree down and is it enough to reach for the wallet....  

 

 

 

[daltontrees]

4 hours ago, jaime bray said:

i believe that its the miscellaneous provisions act that the local authority would use to ensure that owners of trees that are deemed dangerous get them removed at their cost.

Well, that depends where you are, the Act only applies to 62% of the UK.

 

The test is that the tree is in such condition that it is likely to cause damage to persons or property. The Act can only bring about  "steps for making the tree safe", which could come well short of removing the tree.

 

Now call me pedantic, but you may have rasied expecttions here wrongly. "would use to ensure" is more correctly stated as "could use to try and ensure". Because the Act says the Council 'may' try, not 'will' i.e. it's at the Council's discretion.

 

The Act doesn't apply up here, but nevertheless I have never heard of it being used successfully. It seems to me that the Council would have to incur costs in confirming ownership and carry out an objective assessment of the tree and targets, and may have to respond to a contested notice in the County Court, then  get the work carried out at competitve cost, and only then can it try and recover the cost from the person they served notice on. Maybe the lack of up-front funds and the risk of not recovering any or all outlays is enough to put Councils off?

 

Or am I wrong? Is the MPA being used day-and-daily down there on Albion's Plain?