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

[WesD]

Anyhoow, back to topic for @Smith126 if you are work busy leave it and move on, seems a lot of hassle!

[Mark Bolam]

That's what I'm thinking Wes.

Sounds like a PITA customer.

The sort that think halving a conny would be half the price of removing it.

 

There is also this bit - '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.'

 

I would want - 'And they will personally pay my invoice immediately' on the end of that....

[Gary Prentice]

7 hours ago, WesD said:

 

 

"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."

 

That’s a p poor excuse. It basically admits that the hole was visible and known about. That should have initiated further investigation to gauge its extent and then, if necessary, remedial measures to reduce the likelihood of failure.

[WesD]

3 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Because you didn't identify the obvious defect, correctly assess the likelihood of failure, or assess the risk of harm.

And yet you don’t want trees to have weight reduced on poor unions/rot pockets or for trees to be felled. 

 

You cant have it both ways fella. 

[Wentworth arborist]

Hello all,
 
I have priced for the removal of Holm Oak, by my client, which has been accepted and Tree Officer has approved the work. However, the tree isn't owned by the client, it is behind the rear fence, and althought they have permission from the owner to remove the tree. The tree owner has refused to share any of the cost. A tree report was carried out on the tree, and due to various structural defects, and fungal infection (Ganoderma) in the tree, the tree has been labelled as unsafe.
 
I have been advised that under the 'Occupier Liability Act 1984', the owner of the tree has full responisibility to cover all the costs, however, for my client to go down this road it would involve solicitors and end up prolonging the time taken to have the tree removed. They have said that they will foot the bill, simply because their scared the tree will hit house and they want to remain amicapable but in my opinion its seems unjust for them to foot the entire bill for a dangerous a tree which doesn't belong to them.
 
I'm interested to know if anyone has had experience of these situations in the past, and whether you have any advice.
 
Thanks

Ye we get it all time people paying for others trees cos there won’t do anything abt there Owen trees

[Smith126]

Good evening all...

 

I wanted to ask some advice, same topic...

 

The owners have requested to keep the timber, on the condition that the timber is moved from the tree to an area 200m away. This obviously involves extra expence, I have priced in for skidsteer to move the timber, yet, my question is can we as the contractor dictate that the owner, is responsible for the cost and not my client (their neighbour), or is that something for the client and owner to agree between themselves?

 

I would appreciate any advice or experience you guys may have?

 

My assumption is that its an agreement between client and person keeping the wood, and not something I be involved in?

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Smith126

[Thesnarlingbadger]

Good evening all...
 
I wanted to ask some advice, same topic...
 
The owners have requested to keep the timber, on the condition that the timber is moved from the tree to an area 200m away. This obviously involves extra expence, I have priced in for skidsteer to move the timber, yet, my question is can we as the contractor dictate that the owner, is responsible for the cost and not my client (their neighbour), or is that something for the client and owner to agree between themselves?
 
I would appreciate any advice or experience you guys may have?
 
My assumption is that its an agreement between client and person keeping the wood, and not something I be involved in?
 

I’d leave it for the tree owner and neighbour to discuss. I would assume if the owner wants the wood and wants it stored 200m away from the tree then he or she will expect to pay something towards it.

Otherwise just explained that they won’t have to pay if the timber is kept next to the tree.
Most people soon think that if it will save them a couple of hundred quid they will sort it themselves.

[Smith126]

Cheers dude. ??

[Mesterh]

6 hours ago, Smith126 said:

Good evening all...

 

I wanted to ask some advice, same topic...

 

The owners have requested to keep the timber, on the condition that the timber is moved from the tree to an area 200m away. This obviously involves extra expence, I have priced in for skidsteer to move the timber, yet, my question is can we as the contractor dictate that the owner, is responsible for the cost and not my client (their neighbour), or is that something for the client and owner to agree between themselves?

 

I would appreciate any advice or experience you guys may have?

 

My assumption is that its an agreement between client and person keeping the wood, and not something I be involved in?

 

Dont assume anything

 

Just quote what you are going to do end of. If they dont agree with that then requote on what they want and go from there.

 

Dont let neighbours sort it out between themselves, you will be the one to loose out trying to play happy families.

 

If it becomes a neighbourly argument then move on and dont look back.

 

 

 

 

[sbyorkshire]

Ensure you have access agreed, in writing , or you cannot enter the neighbours 'air space' as this would be trespass......... 

 

Your client can do nothing other than advise the tree owner that they feel the tree is unsafe, they do not have to act (but they are liable for any ultimate damage, except for say abrading on your client roof ( as your client should maintain their property from this encroachment) and then your client can request that you prune back  to the boundary, offering the items back (pruning so as not to make the tree decline........... as then your client could become liable, under common law.

 

If your client is now totally paranoid they will have to just get on with and pay ! It is not 'fair' but rarely things are.

 

The tree 'owner' is liable if the tree fails or causes damage*  (if you have not made unstable for example by pruning or 'chopping off roots..........)

 

* Some exceptions, 

Hope this helps