Unauthorized pruning

[Jesse]

You have just listed all the reasons a "no win, no fee" Co would not touch it with a barge pole

 

I really don't think arb law is complex at all, I've been doing tree work full time for 18 years, cutting 1000's of trees back to boundary and never had any problems.

 

I really think you have made it out to be far more complicated than it is.

 

Just out of interest and at a basic level have you ever done the AA Tech cert or PD Arb exams on law? I don't think that anyone who has sat those exams would agree with you on that one, tree law is complex, and yes I have made it complicated to illustrate how an issue can develop and descend into a nightmare situation .

[likeitorlumpit]

looking at the picture they have certainly cut back beyond the boundary.

No legal right to do that

They have done work not within the interests of the tree.

Again no legal right

Obvious trespass to carry out the work and photo proof

Again no legal right.

They should of offered the branches back if not then it is again

No legal right

The clematis that grew into a court case - Telegraph

War over clematis costs woman 250 - Telegraph

I would hope they had actually asked the tree owners

Homeowner in court for pruning clematis | Mail Online

could not find the case i was looking for but there is a couple that certainly were smaller.

I would honestly look towards a few hrs research and a discussion with the local tree officer as to there thoughts as to any action desired both to the tree and the neighbours.

 

Interesting that montana is being called 'mile a minute'

I know that name for Russian Vine -Polygonum

Sorry- derail

How these cases come to court is beyond me- people don't understand the costs of court though in this case they said the Taxpayer paid- thats you and me- how stupid.

[daltontrees]

Fascinating post...

I have recently done the AA Tech law exam (passed, phew). It didn't requre that level of detail on disputes and encroachments. So I got a copy of Mynors (which, incidentally, up here in Scotland is about as useful as a square pin plug in Europe) and after immersing myself in it I concluded that the law on this type of situation is not only unresolved but is possibly unresolveable and that each case would probably be decided on merits weighing up ecroachment against criminal damage. I have been in the situation too where police have been called, me being threatened with violence, interdicts, clients moving house to get away from 'cocks' forever etc.

Foregetting about law for a moment, the average person would say the pruning is ridiculous, but I bet there are two sides to the story. Back to the law, it takes the side of a reasonable person. The issues of branch theft, trespass etc. would only be rocks to throw at each other in an expensive legal fight. To my mind the real offense is not yet proven... there is no doubt that the prunming cannot be defended as within best practice (BS3998 being a good foundation) and therefore the neighbour and/or advisor/contractor) wouldn't be able to satisfya court that the eventual demise of the whole tree was foreseeable. If it falls over or drops a branch on someone in the lane and there is injury or damage in the short term, the owner could well look to the neighbour for liability. In the loger term though, if I was the owner I would take impartial advice on the long term tree health and if it is or probably will become dangerous as a result of the pruning I would (i) take it down and (ii) consider seeking to recoup the cost or a part of it from the neighbour. That's what a reasonable person might do but as I say there is probably a bit of 'history' that could cloud judgement.

 

PS I would have declined that pruning job, even with written proof that I had advised against it, for fear that people would have seen our company doing it. Or at least hire an unmarked transit and wear a Mickey Mouse mask. Maybe use a washing line for safety though, wouldn't want to take any chances.

[Dean Lofthouse]

If the tree cutter was a pro then he needs his head seeing to....

 

Unless you are absolutely desperate for work, why would you...

 

A. Carry out such a spec

 

B. get involved in such a dispute

 

I personally would not and never will cut a tree without the owners permission and have refused to do so many many times

 

I think the tree cutter should bear the biggest brunt of any legal action, he should know better and should also know the consequences

[swinny]

In this case the neigbour has cut back beyond their boundary and also a large portion of the tree which was over a public foot path.

 

They have gone well beyond what is reasonable IMO. They must have trespassed to do the work, and they have rendered the tree worthless now.. I will let you know what happens.

 

But Does it have a Tpo or in a Conservation area? You still haven't said

[Stephen Blair]

So you topped it before Ben?

[Le Sanglier]

I agree.

 

I believe in France you even own your view and if some one wishes to block it they must buy the view off you.

 

You were misinformed.

[Jesse]

Fascinating post...

I have recently done the AA Tech law exam (passed, phew). It didn't requre that level of detail on disputes and encroachments. So I got a copy of Mynors (which, incidentally, up here in Scotland is about as useful as a square pin plug in Europe) and after immersing myself in it I concluded that the law on this type of situation is not only unresolved but is possibly unresolveable and that each case would probably be decided on merits weighing up ecroachment against criminal damage. I have been in the situation too where police have been called, me being threatened with violence, interdicts, clients moving house to get away from 'cocks' forever etc.

Foregetting about law for a moment, the average person would say the pruning is ridiculous, but I bet there are two sides to the story. Back to the law, it takes the side of a reasonable person. The issues of branch theft, trespass etc. would only be rocks to throw at each other in an expensive legal fight. To my mind the real offense is not yet proven... there is no doubt that the prunming cannot be defended as within best practice (BS3998 being a good foundation) and therefore the neighbour and/or advisor/contractor) wouldn't be able to satisfya court that the eventual demise of the whole tree was foreseeable. If it falls over or drops a branch on someone in the lane and there is injury or damage in the short term, the owner could well look to the neighbour for liability. In the loger term though, if I was the owner I would take impartial advice on the long term tree health and if it is or probably will become dangerous as a result of the pruning I would (i) take it down and (ii) consider seeking to recoup the cost or a part of it from the neighbour. That's what a reasonable person might do but as I say there is probably a bit of 'history' that could cloud judgement.

 

PS I would have declined that pruning job, even with written proof that I had advised against it, for fear that people would have seen our company doing it. Or at least hire an unmarked transit and wear a Mickey Mouse mask. Maybe use a washing line for safety though, wouldn't want to take any chances.

Very well done:thumbup1: Unit 8 was one of the hardest examinations I have ever done, 1hr 30mins, it fly's by, my pen never stopped from start to finish, "Phew" that's what I said and a bit more.

[skyhuck]

Fascinating post...

I have recently done the AA Tech law exam (passed, phew). It didn't requre that level of detail on disputes and encroachments. So I got a copy of Mynors (which, incidentally, up here in Scotland is about as useful as a square pin plug in Europe) and after immersing myself in it I concluded that the law on this type of situation is not only unresolved but is possibly unresolveable and that each case would probably be decided on merits weighing up ecroachment against criminal damage. I have been in the situation too where police have been called, me being threatened with violence, interdicts, clients moving house to get away from 'cocks' forever etc.

Foregetting about law for a moment, the average person would say the pruning is ridiculous, but I bet there are two sides to the story. Back to the law, it takes the side of a reasonable person. The issues of branch theft, trespass etc. would only be rocks to throw at each other in an expensive legal fight. To my mind the real offense is not yet proven... there is no doubt that the prunming cannot be defended as within best practice (BS3998 being a good foundation) and therefore the neighbour and/or advisor/contractor) wouldn't be able to satisfya court that the eventual demise of the whole tree was foreseeable. If it falls over or drops a branch on someone in the lane and there is injury or damage in the short term, the owner could well look to the neighbour for liability. In the loger term though, if I was the owner I would take impartial advice on the long term tree health and if it is or probably will become dangerous as a result of the pruning I would (i) take it down and (ii) consider seeking to recoup the cost or a part of it from the neighbour. That's what a reasonable person might do but as I say there is probably a bit of 'history' that could cloud judgement.

 

PS I would have declined that pruning job, even with written proof that I had advised against it, for fear that people would have seen our company doing it. Or at least hire an unmarked transit and wear a Mickey Mouse mask. Maybe use a washing line for safety though, wouldn't want to take any chances.

 

So are you saying that if your neighbours tree over hangs your land to such an extent that cutting back to boundary will badly damage damage the tree, you can't cut back to boundary??, surly its not "reasonable" to expect your neighbour to put up with effectively losing usable land for the sake of someone else's tree???

 

As for BS3998, the very fact that you can only lawfully cut to boundary means theres no chance of working to BS, unless the owner see sense and allows you to cut beyond boundary where required.

[skyhuck]

You were misinformed.

 

Not the first time