Unauthorized pruning

[treequip]

. 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.

 

That argument dosent hold up, tree health or survival cannot licence the trespass.

 

The "servient" party is always going to be allowed to self abate the nuisance, (statutory protection allowing) If the removal of trespass leaves the tree in need of further works to keep it in a safe condition that should fall, under the tree owners duty of care.

 

An event like heavy pruning by a third party ought to prompt the tree owner into an inspection but if there is any concern, it would be prudent to issue a caveat to the tree owner.

[benedmonds]

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

 

No TPO or conservation area or I would have said...

[benedmonds]

So you topped it before Ben?

 

We "reduced it..."

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...Ok yes we topped it... I recomended the fell but the customer was very fond of the tree! It had recovered well and looked OK.

[Mesterh]

Not the first time

 

Thats a bit of a shame as it sounded like a very sensible law.

 

I bet that tree dominated the neighbours garden and house.

[swinny]

BTW The traffic yesterday on the way home from the airb fair was rubbish wasn't it! was just at the side of you in your 4x4

 

What the other contractor did was ott and has ruined the tree, it'll be on the fell list now?

[daltontrees]

Dammit, I have had to dust off Mynors to be able to reply on this!

It seems that the courts have taken a view on the trespass matter. The neighbour should always ask the owner to abate the nusiance and similarly (possibly as pasr of the same communication) give notice of intention to do the work in default of the owner doing it. This is more than a common courtesy, as the courts have alluded to some of the reasons why asking/notice are needed. Here's exactly what Mynors says...

"In particular the removal of the branches... up to the boundary between two properties may lead to the tree being unstable and thus more likely to fall in the future. In addition, if the work is carried out incompetently, it may lead to decay at the point wherre the branches were removed, thus shortening the life of the tree. It is for these reasons unwise to carry out abatement - other than at a trivial level - without first taking professional advice from an arboriculturalist."

Now, Mynors is not prone to leave any point of law flapping in the breeze like that. It suggests to me that the strict liabilities have not been sufficiently defined in court yet and probably can't be without specific legislation. That's what I meant before about 'unresolveable'.

Hopefully it is clear that if the tree blew over or died prematurely because of the pruning it could be the neighbour's fault. Much as he may have the right to remove branches he has no right to destroy or cause the self-destruction of another man's property.

BS3998 I mentioned only as a test of what the courts might look at as industry best practice. If I was representing the owner I would be beating the neighbour over the head with it metaphorically if not actually. But it has a specific use in this scenario and it relates to trespass/notice/asking. If the owner had been asked or if the neighbour had taken that professional advice he might have learned that the BS at 7.2.4 suggests that the branches selected for removal should not be closely aligned within the tree's vascular system (e.g. in a vertical line). There are several stipulations in the BS that have been breached by this pruning/butchering job, like amount removed in one season, long pruning stubs etc.

My first point is that if the neighbour had asked or taken advice someone could have removed the branches properly in a phased manner over several years to minimise the risk of the tree dying or blowing over. That would be reasonable. My second point is that if the tree now dies prematurely or blows over the neighbour is responsible, because it could have been avoided by more reasonable action.

Mynors is going back on the shelf. Anyone who acts reasonably need no knowledge of the law and should have no fear of it, but those who act unreasonably cannot expect to hide behind it.

[benedmonds]

I was back at the property today and asked the tree owner what had happened re his legal action. This was his reply:

 

"The outcome of my Redwood is farcical, in that the legal company representing my insurer, basically said that the courts typically only offer around £2,000 in compensation for damaged/lost trees and that the court costs could approach £12,000!

 

So if I lost, they would have to meet this and although they accepted that the damage to the tree and ultimate felling was caused by my neighbours action, because my neighbour claimed that the roots had damaged their pathway, they said they have a valid defence and counter claim! "

 

Just shows you can mutilate your neighbours tree without concern...

 

On a brighter note a nice police lady has just returned my stolen D8!!

[daltontrees]

It'd be nice to hae enough spare cash to take them to court anyway just to see how they thought that root damage would be solved by wholesale branch removal.

[JonnyVine]

This has to be one of the most common and contradictory subjects I encounter.

How does the law expect a neighbour to successfully remove overhanging branches? Expectantly, overhanging branches are going to be in the same axial or vascular plane and I'm sure we are all familliar with the columns of decay that followsuch exessive removal.

It is not possible to remove branches correctly at the branch junction without going onto the tree owners property.

 

Clearly a catch22 situation that can and does lead to serious frustration for any neighbour that has cantankerous and stubborn tree owners living next door.

 

I agree with previous sentiment that what was done to this tree is appaling, however, with increasing regularity I am being called out to try and advise homeowners on very similar circumstances and after being advised that there is not much that can be done about the imposing structure next door they resort to desperate measures like this.

 

I firmly believe that exessively high structures in the garden of a dwelling are antisocial and should be illegal and a maximum hight installed.

There should be a right to light and anyone wanting high trees on their property should buy somewhere secluded.

[daltontrees]

Lkike I said a while ago, it is possibly an unresolvable issue without statutory intevention. Nearest we currently have is High Hedges legislation. Up here in Scotland a private memebrs Bill has been submitted for a HIgh Hedges Act and there is much baying from a few parties for the legislation to be applicable to deciduous hedges and even to solitary deciduous or evergreen trees. That would be an enormous step for society to take, great for tree surgeons, bad for trees, a great result for individuals, an expensive and loathsome result for tree owners and I think ultimately bad for civil liberties.

If we all expect a right to light, we must all accept to have our right to privacy, our personal choice of garden and our right to develop a natural rapport with neighbours to be stripped from us and replaced by state-sponsored curtain-twitching.

The original subject of this thread, and the situation that materialised regarding prohibitive legal costs illustrates the dilemma perfectly. The law, if forced to, would find precedent or analogy to establish a definitive judgement that would clear the whole thing up in everybody's minds, but no-one wants to take it that far as (it would seem) it is too expensive relative to how little trees matter. Perhaps they matter so little in the grand scale of things that politicians and legislature have never seen fit to give even the debate air time never mind stepping in to pen new legislation that would fill the void so that the likes of us and our exasparated clients know where they stand.

If trees could talk, the ones that weren't getting the life pruned off them would no doubt be laughing at us and wondering how our species ever managed to get this far at the expense of every other species.

Sorry, can't fund a light-hearted emoticon to add that expresses my oveall feeling about this.