Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

advice or help


jose
 Share

Recommended Posts

Could the offer of a caution be because, "Well we wanted to keep the trees, which were previously under good management on council land, so we should have had a TPO in place when we sold the land.

 

But we didn't and when the owner , after checking the trees weren't TPO'd, started to remove them, we realised that we'd cocked up. 

 

So, to save face, we'll get everyone in for a stern discussion to scare them enough to leave the trees alone.:thumbup1:

 

We'd really like to serve a TPO, but that would be admitting that we had no authority to halt the works in the first place....

 

We'll encourage the 'caution' approach then. Everyone agreed?"

 

 

Nah, that would never happen. Or would it?:001_smile:

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

6 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

Could the offer of a caution be because, "Well we wanted to keep the trees, which were previously under good management on council land, so we should have had a TPO in place when we sold the land.

 

But we didn't and when the owner , after checking the trees weren't TPO'd, started to remove them, we realised that we'd cocked up. 

 

So, to save face, we'll get everyone in for a stern discussion to scare them enough to leave the trees alone.:thumbup1:

 

We'd really like to serve a TPO, but that would be admitting that we had no authority to halt the works in the first place....

 

We'll encourage the 'caution' approach then. Everyone agreed?"

 

 

Nah, that would never happen. Or would it?:001_smile:

I think the L.A. should give themselves a caution .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is my opinion too.  Ive seen the correspondence from the TO to home owner, to me its black and white. 

The councils approach is the trees were TPO'd . Do you ( the contractor) cut them down? Yes. In that case case closed, no defence you are guilty. 

Regardless of the written emails and searches from the council stating otherwise. Literally in black and white so to speak.

 

And no worries about the chinese whispers thing, you never know if the details are true, just what is put up. But hand on heart this is exactly hows its all played out so far.

Edited by jose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, felixthelogchopper said:

I wonder what the local papers would make of it? If a local council is trying to cover up a nice bit of incompetence on their part, I can imagine how keen they would be to keep it out of the news. This lot might be interested too.      https://www.lgo.org.uk/

Cover up incompetence! As if.

 

My favourite personal experience was a planning department TWICE refusing an application to fell, on an order that hadn’t been confirmed. 

 

I saw a interoffice memo, between planning and legal, sent after the second ‘refusal’ asking for the order to be confirmed. This was pre 2012 when orders could be confirmed at anytime. This one was eight years between serving and confirming. I’ve heard of thirteen years in another case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jose said:

Contractor has a solicitor. They say accept the caution but there is a feeling that this is the easy way for them ( supplied by contractors insurance broker).

 

No Chinese whispers either. Its exactly as stated.

Personally it seems to me the Tree officer didnt either check properly and or someone hadnt updated the information ( but definiatley the council pocketed the money for land sale). 

 

To save face offer a caution as a sort of win win for them, no loss of face and still slapping contractors wrist.

 

 

This is an argument I’ve had with planning departments who insist that you search online. 

 

When you ask how regularly the website is updated, you normally get a long silence. To date, nobody I’ve spoken to has known and had to ‘’come back ‘ with an answer.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - god love the TO of tree police.

Valid points made : -

In the conveyancing the TPO (if it exists) would have been identified in the land search and it hasn't/wasn't

A check on line and communication/correspondence with the council produced nothing and there's evidence /paper trial

 

So council now say there was/is a TPO and they want to give you a caution to which you have to agree which thereby makes you guilty..............so don't accept the caution but offer that you are happy to undertake an interview under caution under PACE regs......if their trained to do it.?

 

You will be cautioned but you wont be under arrest and can leave at any time, I would be very interested to hear their questions........?!?!o.O

 

When did you purchase the land..................errr 6 months ago from you the council

Did you make any inquiries about the status of the trees - yes here's my e-mails and copies of the information you don't show on your mapping system.

Ohhh errrrr do you have anything you'd like to say or add?.........................Yes can you tell me why this information was not produced as part of the conveyancing/legal pack?  ......and where else I was meant to seek the TPO information (if a TPO does exist)..?????   .....No ok see you in court

 

While the offence is one of the contravention of a TPO I would be interested on a courts stance when the council can't even supply the information in their own conveyancing............A magistrate really hates an incompetent council

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

roz you have summed it up as if you were there. 

The home owner went in for a interview under PACE regs and the whole interview consisted of them asking him why he worked on the tree, just kept on asking him in different ways the same question. 
Trying to get him to admit he cut them so they could say right then thats why.

He ( is switched on in these situations) did exactly what you said, showed all the documents , emails and screen shots of the local searches done and said we proceeded with works on trees that were not covered by a TPO, as clarified by the Tree officer on 2 different occasions!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do what felix said and take it to the papers.  I am convinced the caution is just a way for them to get out of it without losing face.  If you tell them to take it to court they will probably just forget the whole thing, thereby getting off scott free whereas they were happy to throw you under the bus just to avoid themselves looking stupid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.