advice or help

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

6 hours ago, Khriss said:

I would discount Kevs conspiracy theories , I mean,  N.Korea ... never even heard of the place K

You’ll see, just wait....

 

“...as far as i could see and from the correspondence with the tree officer there was no TPO...”

 

Is not quite watertight!  I’m thinking we’ve all been a bit quick to malign the LA! I mean, there either IS or ISN’T a TPO - binary yes/no. 

 

If NO then there has to have been inter-departmental LA collusion to cover up a shortcoming. 

 

If YES then the homeowner may have intentionally mid-led the contractor. 

 

On the balance of probability, if you ABSOLUTELY HAD TO choose 1 or the other, which would you put your money on???

[Gary Prentice]

24 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

If NO then there has to have been inter-departmental LA collusion to cover up a shortcoming. 

 

If YES then the homeowner may have intentionally mid-led the contractor. 

 

On the balance of probability, if you ABSOLUTELY HAD TO choose 1 or the other, which would you put your money on???

Can there be a balance of probability where either is equally probable?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, Gary Prentice said:

Can there be a balance of probability where either is equally probable?

Poorly written on my part Gary!

 

I don’t think either is equally probable!!

 

I think it’s more likely 87.5% that the TPO always did exist and the homeowner is the villain of the piece!

[openspaceman]

3 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

the homeowner is the villain of the piece!

You mean he farmed the new piece of land?

 

Yes it looks like someone was a bit economical with what they conveyed.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

5 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

You mean he farmed the new piece of land?

There's no mention of that.....  But now you mention it, it could be a contributing factor....   

[eggsarascal]

I believe it's called due diligence.

[Arborist]

17 hours ago, daltontrees said:

If there is a TPO you have either been set up (and you have acted in good faith and have been wifully mislead bya customer) or the Council has failed to disclose it after diligent search (and a prosecution would fail, see my earlier reference to Vale of Glamorgan BC v Palmer and Bowles). If there isn't a TPO there's no case to answer.

 

Let's be absolutely clear. Although felling a TPO'd tree is an outright offence and you might only hope to get a way with an admonishment (or a caution if you don't go to court) there is a valid legal defence that it's not an offence if you couldn't have known there was a TPO. Tell your brief to have a look at the case. 

 

My favourite quote about the law is that "The law is best applied when it is subservient to the honesty of the case". If you have done nothing wrong and have done what any reasonable person would have done in the circumstances you have nothing to fear.

 

I am reminded of when I sold a house 2 years ago, and due to a completely innocent oversight I stood to lose £7k on a badly documented Green Deal contract for solar panels that we had. Technically I was in the wrong but the other party was trying to take advantage of my mistake even though they had not actually suffered any loss and only stood to gain something tehy had not intended to get.  My solicitor, who has been in business for 30 years and knows his stuff told me I had no choice but to pay up. But I told him to tell the other side that I would take it to the Court  of Session on one basis alone, that the outcome would be unfair. He said I was on a hiding to nothing. I stood my ground. The other side backed down.  The circumstances are nothing to do with trees or TPOs but they are to do with solicitors not always being right, for whatever reasons.  The other side I believe to this day knew that they would not win a case against an honest person who had not intentionally done anything wrong.

 

Obviously I am in total gung-ho mode, so what I would do is not for all to follow. I wouldn't even go go court, I'd tell the Council that it's for them to prove that the TPO was available for inspection and to explain why they answered in the negative when enquiries were made.

 

Assuming Kevin's entirely plausible conspiracy theory isn't instead true.

Write or wrong / Win or loose a case the solisitors always get paid!

[Anno]

4 minutes ago, Arborist said:

Write or wrong / Win or loose a case the solisitors always get paid!

Isn't that divorce?

[Arborist]

7 minutes ago, Anno said:

Isn't that divorce?

So I’ve herd!

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

18 hours ago, Khriss said:

I would discount Kevs conspiracy theories....

You’re gonna be out on a limb (?) in a minute Khriss ?

 

Ed’s in, Jules referred to it as “highly plausible”, Eggs ain’t buying the sob story and I reckon Gary’s ready to commit too....

 

Its getting pretty close to being mainstream (dammit!) and time to take off the tin foil bowler!!

 

?