Permission Robbed!

[Andy Collins]

I now charge £75 for TPO applications, which is reduced by 50% if I get the job. The application is billed as a separate job these days, to avoid the hassles.

[18 stoner]

Why not get your customer to now refuse to go halves if you dont get the job?

 

If they (the tree owners) get someone else and pay all the amount themselves then im sure your customer may drop you a few quid

 

Yep, my customer is a sound bloke and has already said he will not pay towards another contractor doing the works.

 

All interesting points of view, keep em coming....

[Dean Lofthouse]

Yep, my customer is a sound bloke and has already said he will not pay towards another contractor doing the works.

 

 

How satisfying would that be, the greedy neighbour stitched for the full amount

[volvo]

I think you would have reasonable grounds to bill you’re customer ie; the neighbour not the owner as he did not contact you (I presume).That doesn’t mean you will get payed though but you can only try.

But you might have been stiched up by the owner as he was maybe wanting to see your price.

[Dean Lofthouse]

I think you would have reasonable grounds to bill you’re customer ie; the neighbour not the owner as he did not contact you (I presume).

 

The owner of the tree agreed to go halves, therefore agreed for the planning app to go ahead.

 

I think if it went to court he would have to pay for the application.

 

I would send the tree owner a bill if all else fails and once you know you haven't got the job. He backed out and therefore is responsible for not keeping his end. If he doen't pay then start county court proceedings, you can do this online very easily from your armchair. It will cost a relatively small amount, but well worth the money just to cause him some worry and to send a message you can't just pee people around like that.

 

There will be a good chance you will also get paid without going to court because if you word it right, he will ask advice and will be told he is standing on thin ice.

[18 stoner]

The owner of the tree agreed to go halves, therefore agreed for the planning app to go ahead.

 

I think if it went to court he would have to pay for the application.

 

I would send the tree owner a bill if all else fails and once you know you haven't got the job. He backed out and therefore is responsible for not keeping his end. If he doen't pay then start county court proceedings, you can do this online very easily from your armchair. It will cost a relatively small amount, but well worth the money just to cause him some worry and to send a message you can't just pee people around like that.

 

There will be a good chance you will also get paid without going to court because if you word it right, he will ask advice and will be told he is standing on thin ice.

 

Cheers for that Dean, i think if it comes to it, thats what i`ll do. I`m not that bothered about the money for the application, I just cannot stand being back worded!

 

Lastnight I spoke to my Dad, who despit his age, has a very level head and quite a lot of experience in planning matters. He seems to think if permission is granted in a persons name, that person holds the permission and no one else can then apply for the same works.

 

In this case the permission was addressed and given to my customer and only copies of that permission were sent to myself, the tree owner, parish council, etc, etc.

 

Therefore, if the tree owner carries out works, they will be seen as unauthorised works.

 

But, as Peter says, it would be very unlikely that any proceedings would be taken if that did happen.

 

I will find out for definate on tuesday when i speak to the TO

[Arborlord]

What could happen is the owner wants it done by someone he knows and your customer wont pay half for him to do it then the tree will just get left for another year.

 

I think applying for tpo's for customers is just a waste of everyones time since its hard to charge for it.

 

Then once they have the permission they get some one cheaper any way

[Amelanchier]

He seems to think if permission is granted in a persons name, that person holds the permission and no one else can then apply for the same works.

 

In this case the permission was addressed and given to my customer and only copies of that permission were sent to myself, the tree owner, parish council, etc, etc.

 

Therefore, if the tree owner carries out works, they will be seen as unauthorised works.

 

But, as Peter says, it would be very unlikely that any proceedings would be taken if that did happen.

 

I will find out for definate on tuesday when i speak to the TO

 

Actually, the consent is issued for the works subject to the conditions detailed within it but regardless of who applied.

 

It would be "unreasonable" to condition that only a certain person could undertake those works, and an unreasonable condition cannot be enforced (as Pete noted). Therefore, the LPA don't condition a specific contractor.

[Mac McLennan]

I in the past have let the local authority know that although I have submitted the application, I will no longer be carrying out the work.

 

That way if someone makes a hash of 'your' spec.......It's not 'your name on it'

[18 stoner]

Got the word from the TO.

 

Basically he said the permission has been granted to remove the tree, so even though it is in my customers name, they would not persue the owner if he got another contractor to carry out the works.

 

The response i got was as i suspected, but the feeling i got from the TO was, they knew it was wrong but couldnt be bothered with the hastle.

 

I shall now wait for the outcome of the "other quote" and take it from there.

 

Somehow i think even if i still do the job, there will be a bit of bad atmosphere, but hey!