Duty of care- dangerous trees

[chris cnc]

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

 

is this true in the case of a tree growing on a boundary between private and la land, and a substantial proportion of the tree is on the la side? for example a leaning tree

[APC]

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

 

thing is, they asked for my advice.

 

Nah. What they were actually asking for was mates rates or a freebie!

[chris cnc]

haha you could be right!

[Matthew Arnold]

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

 

That has hit the nail on the head. If you inform the tree owner of a serious defect of the tree then it is their responsibility to deal with it. If the tree fails, then its their home which would be on the line. We did have a tree last year that we informed the homeowner about. It was on their land overhanging our boundary, approximately 2 weeks later the root plate failed in spectacular fashion putting their new shed onto its lid. They blamed our ditch works but the ditch hadn't been dug for approximately 20 years so the root system wouldn't have been affected and would have as fair as i am aware recovered to a point. We blamed the shed footing being dug 2 ft down into the rootplate. Which was riddled with Honey fungal laces. The shed would have been the final straw.

[Lorry thompson]

I've brought it to three different peoples attention lately that their beech trees have giant polypore around their base they didn't care must be our area mate

[chris cnc]

it was probably the same tree mate!

[Lorry thompson]

Haha would be funny if it was. I've seen two in Durham area and one in Newcastle the one in Newcastle is huge and one of the trees in Durham is leaning towards the property so would imagine the house insurance would cover it

[felixthelogchopper]

Legally, you have no obligation to inform the LA. Morally, only you can say but if I was a tree officer who knew a local arb had inspected a dangerous tree and allowed the situation to persist thus endangering innocent people then I would not be inclined to look upon them kindly in future dealings. By the way, were you paid for your opinion? If not, then you don't even have any legal duty to the tree owner either.

[treequip]

By the way, were you paid for your opinion? If not, then you don't even have any legal duty to the tree owner either.

 

Are you sure about that?

[chris cnc]

Legally, you have no obligation to inform the LA. Morally, only you can say but if I was a tree officer who knew a local arb had inspected a dangerous tree and allowed the situation to persist thus endangering innocent people then I would not be inclined to look upon them kindly in future dealings. By the way, were you paid for your opinion? If not, then you don't even have any legal duty to the tree owner either.

 

i did it as a favor and i was not paid, and i do not have professional indemnity insurance. had it been over my head i would have recommended they got a consultant, but it really was a no- brainer, so i wrote up a short statement on the tree condition and recommended its removal.

 

i would have thought that even unpaid advice would carry some liability should the worst happen?

 

letter goes out to the TO tomorrow.