Branches Growing over my Neighbour's Boundary

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 26/09/2022 at 12:49, Will C said:

Incorrect. You must offer the tree owner them back but if they refuse they are your problem 

I disagree. 
 

I have had neighbour dispute where the ‘encroached’ wanted trees trimmed at their expense but didn’t want to dispose of that which encroached. 
 

Tree owner didn’t want what was cut off either. 
 

I simply stacked it on the other side of the boundary by reaching over. A reasonably tidy pile, by no means ‘dumped’ without due care but across the boundary it went. 
 

(it didn’t hurt that I also thought the tree owner was an unreasonable dick who, as a county councillor, thought they could throw their weight around.)
 

The site discussion was legendary!  The debate started about what could or couldn’t be pruned when I interjected to inform the tree owner that the only reason they were invited was to confirm if they ‘wanted’ the arisings back or not and even that was academic since they would be getting them anyway. 

Talk about suck a lemon - had never seen a person so afflicted with verbal diarrhoea turn so pink and silent 😳

[Mark Bolam]

Nicely done Kev, but it doesn’t change the law.

[Stubby]

18 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

Nicely done Kev, but it doesn’t change the law.

I am an officer of the luuur  and I am examining the wax .  Do you have a leiconce for your minky ?  What are you blind or somsing ? Not now Kato ! 😃

[daltontrees]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I disagree. 
 

I have had neighbour dispute where the ‘encroached’ wanted trees trimmed at their expense but didn’t want to dispose of that which encroached. 
 

Tree owner didn’t want what was cut off either. 
 

I simply stacked it on the other side of the boundary by reaching over. A reasonably tidy pile, by no means ‘dumped’ without due care but across the boundary it went. 
 

(it didn’t hurt that I also thought the tree owner was an unreasonable dick who, as a county councillor, thought they could throw their weight around.)
 

The site discussion was legendary!  The debate started about what could or couldn’t be pruned when I interjected to inform the tree owner that the only reason they were invited was to confirm if they ‘wanted’ the arisings back or not and even that was academic since they would be getting them anyway. 

Talk about suck a lemon - had never seen a person so afflicted with verbal diarrhoea turn so pink and silent 😳

I believe the principle is that sending the arsings back over the fence against the tree owner's wishes is fly tipping. But I can't see the law wanting anything to do with it. A rally of brash tennis could then ensue and continue indefinitely. Such fun!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, Mark Bolam said:

Nicely done Kev, but it doesn’t change the law.

 

7 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

I believe the principle is that sending the arsings back over the fence against the tree owner's wishes is fly tipping. But I can't see the law wanting anything to do with it. A rally of brash tennis could then ensue and continue indefinitely. Such fun!

 

 

Fly-tipping is the only crime where the victims (private landowners) have a legal responsibility to dispose of the waste.

 

Under current legislation, landowners can be prosecuted if they fail to remove fly-tipped waste quickly enough.

 

Is it even fly tipped if the person upon whose land the arisings arise is not arisen?  🤣

[john87]

5 hours ago, daltontrees said:

if the encroachment was deemed a nuisance, the court should award an injunction (England) or interdict (Scotland), which would require the tree owner to abate the nuisance at thier own expense. Failure to comply would be contempt of court, punishable with fines and eventually imprisonment.

A court might find a non nuisance encroachment to be de minimis (i.e. too trivial for the law to intervene), and if so there would be no award. or, de minimis but award only costs.

Exactly, why would a person have to pay themselves They could simply obtain an injunction requiring the perpetrator to abate the nuisance, as you say at their own expense..

And, despite what everyone thinks, you certainly CAN enter upon the defendants land to abate the nuisance yourself PROVIDED to tell them of you intention to do so..

 

john..

[john87]

3 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

Nicely done Kev, but it doesn’t change the law.

Quote thje law to which you refer..

john..

[Mark Bolam]

https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/types/trees/the-law

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

23 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/types/trees/the-law

It's a commonly held belief Mark that if the tree owner says they don't want the pruning then the pruner has to remove it - and that's probably not a bad starting point.  It's not predetermined however that the pruner MUST remove them, 9 ½ times out of 10 its just as easy to do so but on that ½ an occasion, even if it is just for the shits and giggles, its worth knowing that what is cut remains the property of the tree owner.  Heaving it all in a big shitty heap is notably antisocial, often unnecessary and not great for reputation but sometimes the job really does warrant such reaction and there is not much (depending upon the size, scale and position of the heap) that can actually be done about it.  Like I say 99.99% of the time not an issue - but for that 0.01% of 'special' people....

 

 

[Mark Bolam]

Tbh Kev I don’t do boundary jobs any more unless both parties are in agreement.

 

Life is way too short to get involved in shitty arguments for people I’ll probably never see again.