TPO Exemptions

[Topcat]

If you think a tree is dangerous,make it safe.Often felling it is the quickest and safest way. Don't wait for the council if TPO. They will never be held liable if anything goes wrong(especially when they want 5 days notice) if it's dangerous in 5 days,it's dangerous now and exempt. You will be the one with egg on your face if something happened in the 5 days and your insurance is not worth a toss. It was no accident because you decided to wait and made the decision

[Amelanchier]

If you think a tree is dangerous,make it safe.Often felling it is the quickest and safest way. Don't wait for the council if TPO. They will never be held liable if anything goes wrong(especially when they want 5 days notice) if it's dangerous in 5 days,it's dangerous now and exempt. You will be the one with egg on your face if something happened in the 5 days and your insurance is not worth a toss. It was no accident because you decided to wait and made the decision

 

Burden of proof is on you though. You might say its dangerous. LPA might not agree. As you indicate, the law is on their side. If you fell a tpo tree because you think it dangerous, fine, but your proof better be 'beyond reasonable doubt' as its an issue of strict liability.

 

If you fell an entire tree because you consider it to be the quickest and safest way of mitigating a hazard you should be very sure that it was a proportional decision. Felling a tree because you can't be arsed to dismantle it is a bad move and might well see you prosecuted. Again you would be expected to prove that the tree was too dangerous to climb/dismantle.

 

Its worth noting that the five day notification period is an obligation under the town and country planning act 1990 (as amended). So I would consider it at least a professional courtesy to notify the LPA even if it is to say "I'm just about to fell your tpo tree at such&such because I consider it to be hazardous and therefore exempt."

[Bundle 2]

Liability means just that...Especially if a tree is covered by an order from the council...If a tree with a TPO in place fails and the council have not been given their five days notice...so what...As a condition of the tpo the trees are inspected to maintain their regal status...councils are already failing in their duty of care to allow things to get that bad

[Amelanchier]

Nope. Tpo does not mean that the council has a duty of care to inspect. We ain't got the budget, and you wouldn't pay for the increase in council tax.

 

Tree owner retains all duty of care regardless of tpo/ca status.

[Bundle 2]

Nope. Tpo does not mean that the council has a duty of care to inspect. We ain't got the budget, and you wouldn't pay for the increase in council tax.

 

Tree owner retains all duty of care regardless of tpo/ca status.

.......mmmmmmm.....>>>

[skyhuck]

"I'm just about to fell your tpo tree at such&such because I consider it to be hazardous and therefore exempt."

 

"Your tpo tree" interesting use of words Tony,but its not their tree is it,its their tpo.

I had one a few years back,a Horse chestnut with bleeding cancer,it had shed a large limb,i told the house holder(and the actual owner of the tree) that IMO it was unsafe and we would remove within 5 days she emailed the T/O,he sent back a snotty email saying he had looked at the tree and it was not to be touched or else.Days latter it shed another limb,at which point he sent her a letter saying the tree was unsafe and must be felled within 7 days:alberteinstein:

 

I now advice clients to wright to the LA and tell them that as they have been advised it is unsafe their insurance will not cover the tree and if they insist it is safe the LA must cover all and any costs incurred if the tree should fail,at which point the LA always seem to have a change of opinion:icon14:

[Bundle 2]

Strict Liability !!!

Essentially councils can and should not order TPO status if they cant be held accountable for the conditions. My motor gets an MOT once a year..not much use on any other day of the year 'cept the one on which it was issued. IMO.

[Pete Mctree]

If an application for a tree to be felled was denighed by the tree officer, despite a written report by a qualified arborist, they surely would be liable as an individual under H&S legislation

[Bundle 2]

Of course they would Pete. But the point is you need to go to court and argue the toss with folk that essentially know even less than that....Expert witness is fast becoming jus that. A difference of opinion is just that. By presenting a report to a council of the condition of a tree with TPO is just that. Your opinion alone will not hurt the guy!! The condition of the tree is most likely not a contestable issue. Whats important is the councils wilful neglect in not responding to warnings from members within their own industry.

 

actually I'm not sure that by preparing a report on the condition of a tree and on finding and recommending removal, you dont set yourself up as culpable.

[Amelanchier]

"Your tpo tree" interesting use of words Tony,but its not their tree is it,its their tpo.

 

Yep fair point and while I agree with you that phrasology is what I hear on a daily basis.

 

I had one a few years back,a Horse chestnut with bleeding cancer,it had shed a large limb,i told the house holder(and the actual owner of the tree) that IMO it was unsafe and we would remove within 5 days she emailed the T/O,he sent back a snotty email saying he had looked at the tree and it was not to be touched or else.Days latter it shed another limb,at which point he sent her a letter saying the tree was unsafe and must be felled within 7 days:alberteinstein::

 

I agree. That sounds lame.

 

I now advice clients to wright to the LA and tell them that as they have been advised it is unsafe their insurance will not cover the tree and if they insist it is safe the LA must cover all and any costs incurred if the tree should fail,at which point the LA always seem to have a change of opinion:icon14:

 

Not sure how that would play out in court though. What I am sure is though that a judge and/or jury would decide on the significance of the hazard based on expert witnesses, and then decide if the LPA had obstructed the owner in his attempts to mitigate that hazard.

 

I, nor Mynors (2002) is aware of any case law pertaining to the attributation of liability to a LPA as a result of the failure of a TPO tree.

 

NB -

Pre 1999 there was the option for the LPA to issue article 5 certificates which indemnify them from all compensation relating to a TPO. So, falling branches, total windthrow through your conservatory, subsidence - your problem.

 

Post 1999 article 5 certs deemed disproportionate (quite correctly IMO). So claims can be made against LPA for damage caused by TPO trees.