Boundary trees to be cut by neighbour

[Joe Newton]

On 23/12/2024 at 21:40, kram said:

Their reply indicates they will not be paying a penny of compensation to you for the lack of privacy, fencing, security, damage to your plants, garden or water run off.

 

I do not think any court would side with them on the information presented here, if you argue the points that have been raised, atleast not if the cedars stay.

 

 

 

 

I'd advise against giving legal advise when you clearly haven't a clue.

 

Few of us know the intricacies of the law regarding such matters.

[kram]

I did not give legal advice, I gave my opinion followed by "get professional advice".

 

[eanswythe]

Well Happy New Year to everyone!

Re the trees....

I queried the unanswered questions and the response was:

 

'With regards to privacy, you can look into replacement planting, there are plants / trees out there that will grow fast...
Innovation group will accept full liability if damage is caused but our tree surgeons would make sure protection / care is put in place prior to the works.
With regards to fencing, unfortunately we don't deal with this, it would need to be discussed on a private basis with your neighbour.
In relation to the water damage, we only deal with damage that's been caused to our insureds property, if there's damage occurring to your property we'd advise that you need make your insurer aware, or again, speak with the owner to see if a resolution can be made.'

 

A couple of questions...

Today I have received a final notice email and letter attachment. 

 

As they are not really sure what tree matter was discovered but obviously want our trees down and have specifically named T2 ( the 2 evergreens) is it reasonable to write and agree to T2 being removed?

 

It could be argued that taking all the trees is wilful removal for their convenience sake especially as there are 3 cedars in a row above our property and historic problems with the underground water on the main road. The garden is water logged now as it is.

 

Give up and ask for time to organise removal of garden furniture and statues?

[kram]

If your gardens already waterlogged, it would be worse in future without the trees.

 

 Did you seek any professional advice?

 

[manco]

if someone hasnt said it already, id heavily insist on it being an arb approved contractor doing the work.

i see little reason from that 2nd photo why any plant damage couldnt be avoided

[Mick Dempsey]

2 minutes ago, manco said:

if someone hasnt said it already, id heavily insist on it being an arb approved contractor doing the work.

Why?

[eanswythe]

My insurance company is not interested until something goes wrong on this property as the  premiums for advanced legal assistance are not covered. 

They won't investigate on another person's property.

 

The local surveyors have seen the property (informally)and think taking the trees down will not resolve the neighbours issues. 

 

As a last ditch I can write again and emphasise that

 

'the cherry and narrow pine have not been implicated only in so far as ANY vegetation is (and put down in writing to them) a problem why does the Atlas Cedar remain in place.  Surely if there was any reason for the water levels to alter that would have been removed by now. I wish to keep the cherry tree and the pine tree and see how things progress.  If it can be demonstrated at a later date that they are causing a problem then they will be removed.'

 

Sound ok? Don't want my insurer to drop me in it. Likewise I don't want to loose my garden to a giant.

 

 

[manco]

6 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Why?

cant remember.

[daltontrees]

21 hours ago, eanswythe said:

...'If it can be demonstrated at a later date that they are causing a problem then they will be removed.'

 

Sound ok? Don't want my insurer to drop me in it. Likewise I don't want to loose my garden to a giant.

I haven't been following this too closely, but your suggested text probably isn't adequate. Case law indicates that liability starts from the time when the tree owner became (or, in some cases, shuld have become) aware of the damage being caused.

 

As Iunderstand it the neighbour's insurer is just casting vague aspersions without proof. Typical insurer bullying (or at best, lazy) tactics. But the onus is on you now to satisfy yourself (not them) as to your liability.

 

Once you've done that it's a matter of whether you tell them or not. If you are confident that you are not liablie, you needn't say anything more, but if you have gone to the effort of getting professional advice I'd share it with them.

 

And you wouldn't have to to say you'll remove the tree. Just that you'll take appropriate action. Which might be something less drastic than removal.

 

And be aware that you are discussing this in public. The insurer could have access to this forum, just as you have.

[daltontrees]

On 23/12/2024 at 21:40, kram said:

I do not think any court would side with them on the information presented here, if you argue the points that have been raised, atleast not if the cedars stay.

 

Hmm, I wouldn't be confident of that yet.