woodrep

[Callum]

Hi

 

I'm not a lawyer but I think 'Wilfully' could be interpreted as deliberately picking up a saw and using it on a tree.

 

Not Wilful would be more like accidently crashing a car into a tree and damaging it

Edited July 21, 2012 by Callum

[arnoldbuchsassinger]

i have just read the first thread again, i dont understand why it is going around and around, were they tpo'd, yes or no, if no then no problem, if yes then as a professional, the relevant information should have been sort before the work carried out. What concerns me is that there are people with a lot of years of arboricultural experience, but did not learnt that much, especially the way local councils work. The councils also have retrospective powers.

[woodrep]

The dept in central goverment that deals with tpos, issues a blue book every so often which is called tree preservation orders a guide to law and good practice.Free as a download I think .This will tell you what makes a tpo .It illustrates some of the pitfalls for a local authority to avoid.It implies many of the flaws ,it is a document of some note in law.To paraphrase what it says unless correctly drawn and served a tpo is just a spell.Spells only work on the unquestioning.An example, the client has a copy of a tpo there are a dozen trees on the site some are identified as tpos others are not ,the map is small scale.He has felled with permission some trees which do not precisely match the tpo .so the question is which of the remaining trees is tpod.obviously the tree officer doesnt know as the old permissions demonstrated.the client isnt a surveyor he is a layman he must make a judgement on the import of what is before him.He is no more partisan than the tree officer . If he decides to back his judgement then there is no breach unless it can be proven. even though councils have got a reprieve with the new regs that will not repair existing flawed tpos they are out there in their thousands,waiting

Edited July 23, 2012 by woodrep
typo

[Khriss]

Much seems to be made now of the 'Under Management ' clause , a pretty useful way to tidy things up But it still seems to rest on the attitude of yr LA Tree officer, Kx

[HCR]

When relying on a defence in English and Welsh law, it is by no means uncommon for the defendant to have to prove that his defence existed.

 

Also, in Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379 the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no principled objection to the imposition of strict liability in criminal cases.

[woodrep]

New legislation yes ,recent case law yes because human rights are part of the processes.

[daltontrees]

A somewhat simplistic but nevertheless valid view is that the HRA merely codified existing law and that one shouldn't expect any radical changes to come from it, just a percieved new ease of assserting long existing human rights?