Duty of care- dangerous trees

[chris cnc]

wonder if i can pick your brains...?

 

over a month ago i was asked to look at a tree belonging to a family member of one of my friends.

 

the tree is large, dead, decayed and overall, dangerous.

 

the owners home and a busy road stand well within target range.

 

i provided a written summary of the trees condition, and advised that the tree should be removed as soon as possible to avoid injury etc etc, also explaining that they would be liable for any damages.

 

the owner is reluctant to spend the money on the removal, and the tree remains standing.

 

what is the next step for the conscientious arborist? its certainly not a tree you would want to remove for free, and it certainly should not be left standing. but if the owner refuses to pay for a removal, can anything be done?

 

the tree poses a risk to the general public, as well as the property owners- is this different from a situation where the tree poses a threat only to the owner?

 

should i notify the LA?

 

what would you do in this situation?

 

would be good to hear your thoughts

 

chris

[treequip]

Speak to the relevant LA they have powers under the miscellaneous provisions act.

[chris cnc]

simple as that eh!

 

is it part of our legal duty to inform our local authority of dangerous trees that the owner will not remove? what i mean is, if the tree falls down tonight and i didnt tell the LA, am i partly liable?

 

if that makes sense

[Matthew Arnold]

Nope. We have done the same thing. Except we informed the homeowner and LA about the hazardous tree. We had an instance last year where we told a member of the public that their Limes were all looking very sick. They were well in target distance as they were in the front garden on the road side above 1000 volt elec lines. 2 days later tree surgeons were there felling the trees. The stumps didnt coppice up and they were ground out.

[chris cnc]

Nope. We have done the same thing. .

 

sorry, but which of my many questions is the "nope" refering to?

 

thanks for the response

[Matthew Arnold]

THE am i liable bit. You cover your backside if you notify the LA as its there necks on the line if nothing it done not yours. Your neck is only on the line if you are doing remedial work or removing the tree and something goes wrong.

[treequip]

simple as that eh!

 

is it part of our legal duty to inform our local authority of dangerous trees that the owner will not remove? what i mean is, if the tree falls down tonight and i didnt tell the LA, am i partly liable?

 

if that makes sense

 

Your duty of care extends as far as informing the tree owner that (in this case) the tree needs to be removed. In such cases it’s often worth putting that in writing for them, or rather for you, to take the “who said what to whom” thing out of it in case this goes wrong.

 

You don’t have to inform the LA unless you wish to but if you are concerned about it endangering the public…..

[chris cnc]

THE am i liable bit. You cover your backside if you notify the LA as its there necks on the line if nothing it done not yours. Your neck is only on the line if you are doing remedial work or removing the tree and something goes wrong.

 

thanks i get ya

[chris cnc]

Your duty of care extends as far as informing the tree owner that (in this case) the tree needs to be removed. In such cases it’s often worth putting that in writing for them, or rather for you, to take the “who said what to whom” thing out of it in case this goes wrong.

 

You don’t have to inform the LA unless you wish to but if you are concerned about it endangering the public…..

 

thanks, they have it in writing but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

 

thing is, they asked for my advice.

[treequip]

if you notify the LA as its there necks on the line if nothing it done not yours.

 

That might not be strictly true. The duty of care is still on the tree owner.