tree ownership?

[Stephen Blair]

who exactly dont you want to be an ass to geof, ha ha. i am a bit confused now lol

[Dean Lofthouse]

this is now the case dean, you need to show your log book for an mot up with us now, its not exactly a hassle.

 

Your all dodgey looking doods up there, I'm not suprised.

 

We, on the otherhand, are a bit more trustworthy

[Andy Clark]

Surely you can only be convicted of criminal damage if you KNOWINGLY take down a tree without the owners permission.

 

You are taking down a tree in the owners property who tells you that he owns this tree, why on earth would you show massive distrust and ask him to prove it

 

 

 

Yeah, but that's not the scenario though Dean......

 

If the tree was in the middle of the garden, then yeah, there's 99% no doubt about ownership, but this tree (from what Rik says) is smack bang on the boundary, so there's a 50/50 chance it could belong to the other party. The only proof that it belongs to the client, is the client's say-so.

 

 

As for criminal damage, don't forget that there's also Civil proceedings as well....... the "other" neighbour could quite easily file civil proceedings in an attempt to gain damages/compensation for wrongfull/unlawfull distruction of property.

 

 

If it's a fairly sizeable and significant tree, then using something like Helliwell or CAVAT, it would be fairly easy to estimate an appropriate "value" to the tree, which could ultimately end up being the £££s figure claimed back by way of compensation.

 

 

 

For what's at stake if it goes wrong, it's just not worth the risk......... Ignorance, is no defence in law.

[geoff]

who exactly dont you want to be an ass to geof, ha ha. i am a bit confused now lol

 

Yes sorry,Andy said it better in post'33'.

Not making myself clear,fuzzy flue head ive got!

[Stephen Blair]

get well soon, a lot of it about just now.

[geoff]

Ta mate.

[Dean Lofthouse]

 

 

 

For what's at stake if it goes wrong, it's just not worth the risk......... Ignorance, is no defence in law.

 

There is no ignorance though Andy, you have asked the correct questions, you cannot be accountable for the customer lying

 

I would like to know the facts in this senario, so far we have been speculative

 

My friend is a barrister, I see him on the 20th of this month, I'll see if he can shed any light

[Andy Clark]

There is no ignorance though Andy, you have asked the correct questions, you cannot be accountable for the customer lying

 

I would like to know the facts in this senario, so far we have been speculative

 

My friend is a barrister, I see him on the 20th of this month, I'll see if he can shed any light

 

 

But there is though mate...... as a professional in your respective field, with your own doubts as to ownership of the tree, are you not being neglegent by not making sure??

 

Honestly, (and by all means check it with your mate), if Rik fells the tree and it turns out NOT to belong to the client, a defence of "I though it was his tree!" will get him laughed at, with a big fat compensation bill to boot.

[Dean Lofthouse]

But there is though mate...... as a professional in your respective field, with your own doubts as to ownership of the tree, are you not being neglegent by not making sure??

 

Honestly, (and by all means check it with your mate), if Rik fells the tree and it turns out NOT to belong to the client, a defence of "I though it was his tree!" will get him laughed at, with a big fat compensation bill to boot.

 

First of all it will be difficult to prove you had doubt

 

and it would be a case, not of, "I thought it was his tree" but a case of, "I asked two or three times if it was his tree and he catagorically said it was"

 

We have enough on our plate without the duty of deciding whether or not the owner of a tree is infact the owner of the tree

[educated arborist]

Andy is spot on mate & if your mate the barrister was taking on the case he would need & be relying on an expert whitness in court, working as an expert whitness & going off of case president ur up the creek without a paddle. "oh no no TPO on that one dean here i'll sign you a disclaimer", again your fked no disclaimer would be worth the paper its written on.

(PS if you wan't to pay for it i'll do you a legal apraisal??, case president, underlying acts the lot)

Edited February 5, 2010 by educated arborist
ps