Advice needed!Very akward, arrogant boss!!!!

[lendahand]

This reminds me of the old "if you don't have tickets your insurance won't payout" that people alway quote, but never back up with a single example!!

 

.

 

 

Got one. East Hampshire :: Men fined for damage to protected tree

[Andy Collins]

Though I should hope common sense would prevail within companies, and reputable ones would not even ask the employee to breach the rules, unfortunately there are some who would. Obviously the original poster has concerns on this matter, and in this case perhaps he should insist on having the relevant paperwork with him. I (when working for companies) have always had all paperwork for the job in a file with me, even if its just to satisfy the nosey neighbours, so it is not unreasonable to expect the employer to let you know everything about the jobs that you are carrying out. I have been frequently asked "Do you know that tree is TPO'd?" How unprofessional does it look if you just grunt back a "No" or "Dunno"?

[skyhuck]

Got one. East Hampshire :: Men fined for damage to protected tree

 

Quot from that,

 

"East Hampshire District Council takes this duty very seriously and will seek to prosecute anybody who deliberately flouts or ignores the law. From the size of the fines in these cases it can be seen that the courts take the offence equally seriously.

 

It does not say they were "employees"

 

And in any case, the damage was not something they were supposed to be doing, unlike tree removal.

 

That case is similar too some one damaging a car whilst working near it.

[Amelanchier]

they wouldnt have the balls to come on hear & comment,thats why ther tree officers ,got some thing to hide behind ,+ most failed in tree work & couldnt cut the mustard

 

Or perhaps, like me - they missed the thread first time round because its buried in the usual turgid dross about chipper envy and firewood retail backbiting.

 

Incidentally, you're the one hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Would you like your username changed to your real name so that your vapid comments could at least be attributable to you in the real world?

[lendahand]

Quot from that,

 

"East Hampshire District Council takes this duty very seriously and will seek to prosecute anybody .

 

 

You finally agree. "Anybody" It is not in any doubt that anybody, employee, boss, landowner, person just helping out doing a favour, anybody in the whole land could end up in the Crown court looking at an unlimited fine. Agreed, it's more likely that the owner or the tree company will be procecuted. (or both).

 

Oops, except H.M.Queen Elizabeth 11 (she cannot prosecute herself).

Edited October 10, 2010 by lendahand
omission

[skyhuck]

agree it's more likely that the owner or the tree company will be procecuted. (or both).

 

.

 

[Johny Walker]

Or perhaps, like me - they missed the thread first time round because its buried in the usual turgid dross about chipper envy and firewood retail backbiting.

 

Incidentally, you're the one hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Would you like your username changed to your real name so that your vapid comments could at least be attributable to you in the real world?

 

feel free ,:biggrin:p/s please dont derail the thread !!!!! & your thoughts on the thread please

Edited October 10, 2010 by Johny Walker

[Amelanchier]

well theres enough tree officers browsing the forum, perhaps one of you could pipe up and give us a definitive answer on this please?

 

As normal, is suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle ground (and our legal system rarely does definitive)! The arguement seems to be about the technicalities of law vs its realities. But just because the technical has yet to become reality doesn't mean that it can't. All precedents were exactly that - hands up who wants to set their own?

 

There are generally two offences that are pursued if unauthorised work is undertaken to a protected tree. One for the tree owner in permitting the work and one for the contractor in doing it. Anyone involved in either offence can be charged with it. So yes, the bloke on the saw can be found liable. After all - he is the bloke on the saw, the offence doesn't actually happen without him.

 

Ultimately, legal action follows the money and the chance of success, LPA prosecutors tend to pick their fights. Also the courts will take the position of the individual into account and ask whether it would be reasonable for that individual to have known an offence was being committed. Note that this does not absolve the individual, as ignorance of the law is no defence, but might lessen the severity of the decision. Also, because you can be found guilty simply if your negligence contributes to the offence, doing nothing isn't always an option.

 

There is case precendent for using the breakdown of the chain of command as a defence. A contractor was aquitted on appeal because the court found that his subcontractor had acted independently after express instructions. I've dealt with this approach on a development site - I suspect it make the liklihood of going after the employee greater. (If you can find them!)

 

Furthermore, its entirely possible for the courts to passs sentence at different scales. They might find a small fine for the operative and a larger one for the employer (and an even large one of a ltd company).

 

So, what's the probability of the guy on the saw getting prosecuted? If you do you own double checks (remembering that in my district TPO can be made, signed/sealed and served in 45 minutes. Hmmmm, how long ago did your boss check? ) prior to commencement - zero. Don't do the checks - Greater than zero.

 

Life is a continual risk assessment. Your acceptable threshold is likely to be different to mine. Do the benefits of not double checking outweigh the consequences? Not for me.

[Ian Flatters]

As normal, is suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle ground (and our legal system rarely does definitive)! The arguement seems to be about the technicalities of law vs its realities. But just because the technical has yet to become reality doesn't mean that it can't. All precedents were exactly that - hands up who wants to set their own?

 

There are generally two offences that are pursued if unauthorised work is undertaken to a protected tree. One for the tree owner in permitting the work and one for the contractor in doing it. Anyone involved in either offence can be charged with it. So yes, the bloke on the saw can be found liable. After all - he is the bloke on the saw, the offence doesn't actually happen without him.

 

Ultimately, legal action follows the money and the chance of success, LPA prosecutors tend to pick their fights. Also the courts will take the position of the individual into account and ask whether it would be reasonable for that individual to have known an offence was being committed. Note that this does not absolve the individual, as ignorance of the law is no defence, but might lessen the severity of the decision. Also, because you can be found guilty simply if your negligence contributes to the offence, doing nothing isn't always an option.

 

There is case precendent for using the breakdown of the chain of command as a defence. A contractor was aquitted on appeal because the court found that his subcontractor had acted independently after express instructions. I've dealt with this approach on a development site - I suspect it make the liklihood of going after the employee greater. (If you can find them!)

 

Furthermore, its entirely possible for the courts to passs sentence at different scales. They might find a small fine for the operative and a larger one for the employer (and an even large one of a ltd company).

 

So, what's the probability of the guy on the saw getting prosecuted? If you do you own double checks (remembering that in my district TPO can be made, signed/sealed and served in 45 minutes. Hmmmm, how long ago did your boss check? ) prior to commencement - zero. Don't do the checks - Greater than zero.

 

Life is a continual risk assessment. Your acceptable threshold is likely to be different to mine. Do the benefits of not double checking outweigh the consequences? Not for me.

 

Know about this. Priced a job, called the La about a Tpo? (none on site), did a site next door then over the weekend a tpo was served. Always pays to check the day before. (with the client and the La)

[Mesterh]

How good an example is all of the above to show that we should all have quick and easy access to a database off tpo'd trees on the Internet.

 

A quick call to the TO to find out isn't always that quick, especially when you have to wait 48 hours sometimes for them to get back to you.

 

Finding out if a tree is tpo'd should be a quick and easy task, after all we are trying to be the good guys so let's make it nice and easy.