Unauthorized pruning

[Rich2484]

By the looks of the chap in the pic I don't think he really cared about legal issues.....

 

Suppose they have to find out who he was first....

[likeitorlumpit]

Trying to identify the tree- was it Wellingtonia?

[skyhuck]

I'm only stating how things can escalate, and yes it is very un neighborly to throw branches over the fence but I didn't make the Law. (The Theft Act 1968) Branches being stolen was the offense, to gain compensation you have to have a valuation, the branches were of high value as they formed one half of a High Valued Amenity tree, then there is the health of the owner to consider? depression? loss of work? it goes on , do you sort of see now? I'm only highlighting what Arbs should be aware of, When things go wrong and an expert legal team get there teeth into it, you could loose everything. Me, if I even sniff the slightest issue developing we stop everything and double check all permissions are in place or walk away until issues are resolved

 

But if the branches had been thrown over the owner would have had more stress, depression, etc.

 

I agree with you if the branches were not overhanging the cutters land, but if the branches are overhanging, the cutter is within their lawful rights to cut them to boundary, so I don't see how failure to return the arisings can lead to any offence other than theft???

[Jesse]

But if the branches had been thrown over the owner would have had more stress, depression, etc.

 

I agree with you if the branches were not overhanging the cutters land, but if the branches are overhanging, the cutter is within their lawful rights to cut them to boundary, so I don't see how failure to return the arisings can lead to any offence other than theft???

 

We are getting there:001_smile: I think its term is 'Conversion' which in simple terms is theft or 'Appropriation of the owners property', and if the branches had been thrown over and damaged any property you would also be liable for any damages, Theft would be just one offense (which COULD lead to more) and the value of loss decided in court using which ever tree evaluation method they choose Helliwell system being just one of several methods of placing a monetary value on a tree or lost portion of a tree. So, so far we could have- 1 theft, 2 criminal damage, 3 A medical claim , 4 possible loss of earnings, 5 Legal costs and Fees, 6 cost to rectify the damage. The fact that a criminal act took place will open the doors. If you get pulled over for a dodgy light the police will look for other possible offenses. Its the same if you instruct a legal team to represent you but you must have grounds in the first instance and in this case its theft.

[treequip]

I'm only stating how things can escalate, and yes it is very un neighborly to throw branches over the fence but I didn't make the Law. (The Theft Act 1968) Branches being stolen was the offense, to gain compensation you have to have a valuation, the branches were of high value as they formed one half of a High Valued Amenity tree, thenthere is the health of the owner to consider? depression? loss of work? it goes on , do you sort of see now? I'm only highlighting what Arbs should be aware of, When things go wrong and an expert legal team get there teeth into it, you could loose everything. Me, if I even sniff the slightest issue developing we stop everything and double check all permissions are in place or walk away until issues are resolved

 

If the branches were removed as a ligitimate abatement of nuisance the rest of it is moot and the value is the value of the wood.

 

Surely any action for compensation for lost amenity would fail because the removal of the branches was rightful.

[Stubby]

I couldn't agree more, wrong tree wrong place, I can never understand why people don't consider the growth potential of a tree before they plant it , the only law that I see that may have been broken is trespass and without any evidence of trespass they would not have a case unless they took away the arisings and failed to offer them back in which case the owner of the tree would have grounds to claim compensation as the offense is theft. I personally didn't like the tree before it was pruned but I much prefer its new look, its minimalistic, artistic , Damian Hurst springs to mind, it could set a new trend O wait a minute, don't the utility company's already commission works of art like this?

 

People have said to me I can't understand why " they " put that tree there , so close to the house . I point out the tree was there long before the house was built and I can't understand why they put that house so close to that tree .

[skyhuck]

If the branches were removed as a ligitimate abatement of nuisance the rest of it is moot and the value is the value of the wood.

 

Surely any action for compensation for lost amenity would fail because the removal of the branches was rightful.

 

 

Thats how I see it.

[treequip]

 

Thats how I see it.

 

Cos that's how it is:thumbup1:

[Jesse]

If the branches were removed as a ligitimate abatement of nuisance the rest of it is moot and the value is the value of the wood.

 

Surely any action for compensation for lost amenity would fail because the removal of the branches was rightful.

 

Was it 'rightful' or was it excessive ? and I doubt the nuisance issue 'Shade' was resolved , Its a good one to think about.

[Jesse]

People have said to me I can't understand why " they " put that tree there , so close to the house . I point out the tree was there long before the house was built and I can't understand why they put that house so close to that tree .

 

I couldn't agree more but they still build houses to close to trees and seem to take little notice of 5837.