advice or help

[Gary Prentice]

I'm beginning to think that you are not taking this seriously anymore?

 

Hopefully Jose has enough of the email correspondence chain to avoid any ambiguity as to the truth. 

 

It's an interesting thread, seeing who is admitting to contraventions and whether the fessed up to face the music or ducked and ran (mentioning no names )

 

I'll admit to two, one of which I was welding the saw, the other in an instructing role. In the first case the LA provided inaccurate information. The second, well someone on site thought they knew better than the site plan. Both times though, the first course of action was to talk to the TO to provide an explanation - A long history of abiding by the rules and being diligent sure helps to encourage a sympathetic ear and downplay the transgression. Get the TO on side and it's a case of divide and conquer the opposing forces  

[daltontrees]

12 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Well I guess there are two options.

 

More options than that, like telling the Council you plan to plead innocent, and ask them what public interest they think the Corwm Prosecution will see being served by pursuing a prosecution.

 

It all depends on the truth.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

'm beginning to think that you are not taking this seriously anymore?

I am trying....

 

We did eventually get a definitive answer to the TPO yes/no question. 

 

The bit that is still unknown is (a) did the LA say there wasn’t, when now they seek to rely on there having been a TPO, or (b) did the landowners searches & checks INCLUDE the area where (we now know) there was a TPO or not. If not, did they intentionally mislead Jose. 

 

If its (a) then I’m with Jules in a cardboard box. If (b) I’m with Gary pall-ing up with the TO. 

 

 

[Roz]

OK ...some of you are bashing Jose for not directly contacting  the council quite clearly the council have not acted appropriately in their processes and records being 'CRAP'........no real surprises there?!?

So to place some council context on this I have been with this current council over 4 years 15 years in total in LA........when I joined this council there was a major development in a rather 'nice' part of the town and many residents and local members kept saying there was a TPO.  I was not part of the planning process  development already approved before I joined - all the information I inherited, files of copies of TPOs, incomplete spread sheets blah blah there was no ref to a TPO and nothing plotted on the system, checked with legal - nada.

So this week land charges sent me an inquiry about a TPO on the said site as properties have been sold, my response there's no TPO, land charges there is Roz and this is the ref.....................back to legal.....................oh yes there is and it was confirmed...............................so planning aside information goes missing..........councils aren't perfect and there is one thing courts hate.........Incompetent councils.

In going to court ..if a court doesn't throw it out............Jose might be hauled across the coals and made to feel a tad silly but I would guess the council would get a butt kicking for twice not providing the information through 2 different processes - if all the facts are as we have them.

[Gary Prentice]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I am trying....

 

 

 

If its (a) then I’m with Jules in a cardboard box. If (b) I’m with Gary pall-ing up with the TO. 

 

 

 I wouldn't go that far...

 

I would certainly try to call a TO as a character witness though, it might be fun after he'd told the court what a loss the contravention had caused, then for admit how diligent and professionally the accused had acted during the x no. Of years years he'd known him. 

 

[jose]

Thanks guys for all the input. Some of it has been tough love some good love but i take it all because if nothing else i will be learning a lesson from this and i hope it helps others to avoid a similar situation.

 

Like i said at the beginning ( i think) i didnt try anything dodgy, acted in good faith and when the TO came out obeyed the rules and happily followed the given instructions .

Even at this time i still believed it was a misunderstanding!

I always obey the rules as i try to run the best setup i can, its not in mine or anyone else's interest not to. Im in it for the long run.

Its up to the council / solicitor/ courts to decide the next step.

I will let you all know how it pans out. 

 

 

 

[daltontrees]

I'd love to be defence counsel on a case like this.

Jules QC: "So, Mr Defendant, at the time you embarked on cutting down the tree, were you aware of the existence of a Tree Preservation Order"

Defendant: "No"

Jules QC: "Would it be fair to say that you believed there was no TPO?"

Defendant :"Yes".

Jules QC: "Did you check?"

Defendant: "I didn't need to, the customer checked and showed me copies of correspondence with the Council showing that a search had drawn a blank. Plus I had a meeting on site with the Council's Tree Officer, and he told me there was no TPO".

Jules QC: "Your Honour, the copies of the correspondence are in the evidence folder as 'Exhibit A'"

"Now, Mr Defendant, did you believe him?"

Defendant :"He's the Council Tree Officer, I had no reason not to. He should know, shouldn't he?".

Jules QC: "Well, that would be for him to say. We may come to that when we examine his evidence. But for now, do you think that you searching the Council's records at the time the customer did so would have turned up any different answer from the one your customer told you and showed you that he got"

Defendant: "Eh? No, that's not possible"

Jules QC: "Again, we'll come to that in other evidence. And after that and before you cut the tree, did you receive any notification that a TPO had just been made?" 

Defendant: "No".

Jules QC: "And did your customer tell you that he had received any notification fo a new TPO"

Defendant: "No".

Jules QC: "Thank you. And in conclusion, is there any way that you could have known that there was a TPO?"

Defendant: "No... not unless I had got a solicitor to check ...."

Jules QC : "And is that something that you or anyone in the industry routinely does?"

Defendant: "I've never done it and I don't know anyone who has"

Jules QC: "If that's not a requirement, is there any way you could have known there was a TPO?".

Defendant: "I did try, but, no"

Jules QC: "Thank you for your candid answers. I have no further qestions"

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Defendant: "Eh? No, that's not possible"

There's a potential flaw at this bit.....⬆️

 

It could be possible to obtain a different answer if the question related to a different piece of land....

 

(I'm not sure if I'm absolutely clear on the circumstances - did the landowner searches INCLUDE the newly acquired land or did they exclude them.....??) 

[Roz]

...The piece of land as you identify was newly acquired from the council so the conveyancing/legal documents from the council who would be doing the land search for any party  didn't flag this up........The council kinda failed at the first hurdle >?!?!? 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I’m still confused..... (easily done!)

 

Did the new owner “know” there was a TPO but used the absence of an overt record being supplied by the LA in the transfer docs in order to dupe an unwary contractor?

 

Did the new land owner instruct a solicitor to conduct land searches prior to the sale and the results came up negative?

 

Did the purchaser specifically ask the LA about TPO on the NEW piece of land?

 

Something just doesn’t seem ‘complere’ In the circumstances described thus far...