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

[WesD]

4 hours ago, EdwardC said:

How's that? If a manky tree with clear and obvious defects, that hasn't been inspected, falls across the road, and a motorcyclist runs into it and is injured, has there been an accident. Or because the tree owner (LPA) was negligent in not discharging their duty of care/or the TO who was negligent because they didn't look at the tree as instructed, has the accident not happened.

 

The accident is the consequences of tree failure. Those who are responsible for managing/inspecting the tree will be negligent if they can't demonstrate they have acted as a prudent landowner/competent employee.

Now we are on to cause and effect the tree failing was not an accident it failed due to poor care, negligence. 

[Stubby]

It fell on purpose ! ?

[Smith126]

Good evening all....

 

I thought I might update you all, as its all got quite funny...

 

Since my last update I have talked with the owner, where he raised queries over the birds and bats in the tree...there are birds but no bats, however, despite being told areas of safety out weigh the nesting season, he quickly changed his tune to trying to get the council to pay for the works, because in his mind they condemned the tree when the removed a limb, 18 years ago and they are therefore liable for the costs to remove it. He then refused to give access onto his property or for the removal of the tree untill he had written confirmation from the council.

 

The funny thing is, after refusing to contribute to any of the costs for the removal I later received a phone call from my client to say that they had been approached by a different contractor, employed and therefore paid by the owner to remove the tree. ??. I wonder where the non existant money appeared from...

 

It all went quiet again, I was feeling greatful as my clients didn't have to pay a penny. However, recently, I received an email from the owner instructing me to carry out the works.

 

The second part to this saga is that the owner has refused permission to remove the Lawson, next to it and instead reduce it by 5 metres (This is the recommendation of the local TO, yet the county TO has recommended removal...confusing) to compensate for the increase in the prevailing winds after the oak has been removed. Just to clarify the LPA have given permission for both trees to be removed.

 

This will make our lives harder with the removal but I would ask if anyone has experience with adjusting their estimates after the circumstances change. It is in my terms and conditions that the price can be adjusted after a period of 30 days, however, regardless the spec has changed. I imagine he is assuming it will bring the cost down, but it will force the price up...imo.

 

In all honesty of just getting tired and board of this and half tempted to walk away...the only reason I might carry out the works is because the clients are family friends and terrified the thing will fall through their roof.

 

I would appreciate any advice you may have.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Smith126

[Gary Prentice]

4 hours ago, Smith126 said:

This will make our lives harder with the removal but I would ask if anyone has experience with adjusting their estimates after the circumstances change. It is in my terms and conditions that the price can be adjusted after a period of 30 days, however, regardless the spec has changed. I imagine he is assuming it will bring the cost down, but it will force the price up...imo.

 

In all honesty of just getting tired and board of this and half tempted to walk away...the only reason I might carry out the works is because the clients are family friends and terrified the thing will fall through their roof.

Family friends or not, and regardless of the time since you originally quoted,  can't see how you are bound to stick to the original quote. You provided a price to do a particular job, which has now changed. 

 

Look at it another way. If originally removing a tree then allowed you to get a vehicle right to the oak you'd base your price on that. Then that tree only gets pruned, you can't get access to the oak and have to carry out all the oak, which adds an additional day on site. Would you do the work for the same price?

 

If the job changes, reprice it and explain why.

[Gary Prentice]

8 hours ago, EdwardC said:

The tree failing was not an accident. I agree; the accident was a consequence of failure. The tree failed in order to structurally optimise itself to the conditions it found itself enduring. Was that due to poor care or negligence, who knows, that's for the courts to decide. The question is, has the tree owner/their agent acted as a prudent landowner/competently.

 

Define good care. Fell everything because it will at some point fail? Check out the comments of the arborist  in the report 

http://www.kwqc.com/content/news/Arborist-weighs-in-on-possible-cause-of-deadly-tree-branch-collapse-487343071.html

Then take a look at the photo.

 

Competent, reasonable, professional? That's how we're supposed to act; isn't it?

Who'd have thought it! Water pockets causes rot 

 

 

[WesD]

11 hours ago, EdwardC said:

The tree failing was not an accident. I agree; the accident was a consequence of failure. The tree failed in order to structurally optimise itself to the conditions it found itself enduring. Was that due to poor care or negligence, who knows, that's for the courts to decide. The question is, has the tree owner/their agent acted as a prudent landowner/competently.

 

Define good care. Fell everything because it will at some point fail? 

Throw away remark that’s a bit silly coming from someone of your pedigree. 

11 hours ago, EdwardC said:

 

 

 

 

Check out the comments of the arborist  in the report 

http://www.kwqc.com/content/news/Arborist-weighs-in-on-possible-cause-of-deadly-tree-branch-collapse-487343071.html

Then take a look at the photo.

 

Competent, reasonable, professional? That's how we're supposed to act; isn't it?

Sureley based on the below they knew it was rotten so should have advised taking weight off that union?? 

 

Poor care and negligence are one and the same. 

 

"You couldn't tell from the outside how big the hole was with normal maintenance who much it was rotten in the inside," Covert said. "I don't think this could have been prevented."

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by WesD

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

9 hours ago, Smith126 said:

 

This will make our lives harder with the removal but I would ask if anyone has experience with adjusting their estimates after the circumstances

You use the term ‘estimate’ rather than ‘quote’ - estimate is as it says on the tin, an estimate, not fixed but subject to change according to circumstances. No moral dilemma there. 

 

Even if it was a quote, it would be subject to change if circumstances change. But more importantly, after providing a quote, there is absolutely no obligation to deliver the service (on your part) or to accept the quote (on the part of the customer). 

 

Circumstances change - estimate / quote / price may change. 

 

Dont get get sucked into thinking the customer is always right and that they are somehow doing YOU a favour by letting you do the work. 

 

Tell them what you would be content to exchange your time / equipment / expertise for (£) and let them decide. 

[WesD]

On 04/07/2018 at 21:10, EdwardC said:

How many do you want. Every court case arising from tree failure that has caused damage, killed, or injured anyone, blocked a railway, or caused subsidence will be one of negligence

 

On 04/07/2018 at 21:15, EdwardC said:

I meant what I said. Your tree, you could be liable in negligence, you'd have to defend

 

[WesD]

4 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Wes, some people think good tree care is removing all risk ie removal of the tree. It's not, there has to be a balance between real and perceived risk, the benefits and disbenefits that accrue from undertaking work on a tree, and risks to the persons doing the work whilst at the same time managing the tree owners expectations.

 

No, they said you couldn't tell how bad it was so it couldn't have been prevented.

Looks more like an included union than decay. I'm sure there were other factors contributing to the failure but, maybe the risk of harm was acceptable, maybe it just happened to realise that risk. Do we reduce every included stem, fell every tree, or do we do what is reasonable, including undertaking inspections by competent and experienced arboriculturists at reasonable intervals, recommending works, where necessary, that strike a balance between all the benefits and disbenefits. You can't eliminate risk, and so back to good care.

I’ve copy and pasted two and I’ll add this one as every tree owners defence at which point how can you be done for negligence as there is always a balance of risk, it’s not like we should remove weight or fell every tree. 

[WesD]

Suppose you could argue a tree of great size with a risk of failure within a populated area should be reduced in size and weight where risk is and was identified as I’m quite sure we can’t or shouldn’t value a tree being left as a risk over human life?!