Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Your Tree falls into neighbours, whose responsibility to clear up?


TreeAbility
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, drinksloe said:

I was under the impression the above was not the case.

 

i have been looking into this as i have trees on my ground, but most of the insurance sites state that it is not the tree owners insurance but the house holders if landed on.

They claim of their own and don't then claim of urs like u do for car insurance.

 

By rights the way i read it the neighbours insurance should pay for the work and then give u the timber back if u want it.

It did seem a funny situation to me

A situation I recall ....Regular customer ( to the point of being a friend ) . Tree falls in a blow across the boundary damaging a brick and flint wall and demolishing a shed with a speed boat in it . Gardener ( who is also a friend of us and the client ) Says to the neighbor " I have been telling her for ages it was dodgy ! "  So , nothing said to the gardener ( coz he is a nice bloke if  somewhat misguided )  Client quietly pays for the lot , wall , shed , speed boat and us to clear tree and asks us not to mention anything to the gardener .  

Edited by Stubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

In my world, I would grab a saw, chop up the wood, burn the brash and keep the logs....and charge the tree owner a few bottles of Shiraz...nice and simple.

All that legal stuff sounds a bit expensive and likely to affect future insurance costs. A simple mutual solution is usually the best but unfortunately, idiotic neighbours may mess up a decent plan!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about if the trees blow through the boundary from person A to person B. Trees windblown on both sides of the boundary. 

And person B's shed is underneath, damaged by their own trees, that were probably pushed over by person A's.

 

But if person A had felled their trees in advance, person B's trees would be exposed and blow over anyway (onto the shed!)

Not sure if any valid insurance policy exists for either party.....

 

And person A doesn't seem to give a fook, so person B has to do all the work on both sides of boundary fence.

 

Hypothetical of course!!!

Edited by scbk
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, scbk said:

What about if the trees blow through the boundary from person A to person B. Trees windblown on both sides of the boundary. 

And person B's shed is underneath, damaged by their own trees, that were probably pushed over by person A's.

 

But if person A had felled their trees in advance, person B's trees would be exposed and blow over anyway (onto the shed!)

Not sure if any valid insurance policy exists for either party.....

 

And person A doesn't seem to give a fook, so person B has to do all the work on both sides of boundary fence.

 

Hypothetical of course!!!

Shit happens.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another added complication could be that in Scotland windblown trees need a felling licence (unless exempt). Don't know how it would work if you were clearing trees in a park/garden (exempt) that had blown through the boundary from a woodland

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, drinksloe said:

I was under the impression the above was not the case.

 

i have been looking into this as i have trees on my ground, but most of the insurance sites state that it is not the tree owners insurance but the house holders if landed on.

They claim of their own and don't then claim of urs like u do for car insurance.

 

By rights the way i read it the neighbours insurance should pay for the work and then give u the timber back if u want it.

It did seem a funny situation to me

The own of the damaged house claims on his insurance. And his insurance bounces the tree owners insurance, and if uninsured, bounces the tree owner.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jamie Jones said:

The own of the damaged house claims on his insurance. And his insurance bounces the tree owners insurance, and if uninsured, bounces the tree owner.

 

I agree. 
 

Just sorted this one. 
 

Not cross boundary but - homeowner contacts their home insurer to see if costs are covered for tree removal. 
 

Insurer asks - any damage to house?

 

Answer - No. 

 

Fixing the tree is not a recoverable cost I’m afraid....

 

Homeowner (tree owner) pays for tree work. 
 

The phone call to tell me about it was funny - that Saturday of Eunice. 
 

“..... er, you know that tree you told us to remove several years ago....”

 

”....yes...”

 

”...er, it’s on the house....”

 

”...right-o, I’ll come and have a look...”

 

 

77979FF1-4D4C-4260-A963-9CFA5C139275.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question always comes up and it continues to be surprising how ill-defined the answer is. Attempts to answer it always drift off into pragmatic advice, matters of insurance and of responsibility for harm or damage, and horror stories about spiralling legal costs. I believe the answer is clear and simple as long as these distractions are ignored, or at least answered as special cases to the general rule.

 

If your tree falls into a neighbour's garden, it's still yours so get it removed.

IF THERE WAS ALSO DAMAGE OR HARM TO NEIGHBOUR

If it caused damage or harm that could not have been reasonably foreseen, the tree owner is not responsible for compensation.

If harm or damage was reasonably foreseeable, the tree owner may be held negligent and compensation would be payable.

IF THERE ARE ALSO INSURERS INVOLVED

If there are insurances in place, the insurers may step in and deal with negligence claims. It doesn't change the rights or responsibilites of the parties.

Purely depending on what the policy or policies say, insurance may or may not pay out for unforeseeable damage. This is not a rule of law, it depends on the policy. It doesn't change the rights or responsibilites of the parties.

Policies differ as to liability for damage to 3rd party property, whether by negligence or bad luck. They also differ as to cover for damage to boundary structures, which oddly are often excluded from insurance on cheap policies.

Edited by daltontrees
  • 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

Articles

×
×
  • 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.