Tree Survey Qualifactions??

[stevelucocq]

Hi,

 

Ok here is another one. I have started reading through the tree survey notes as part of my Tech Cert and this has got me thinking. During last year I conducted a condition tree survey of a local park. What I was wondering is what legal requirements do you presently need to do this? I would presume the Tech Cert would allow you to write legal condition reports but I had no assessed qualification when conducting this survey. So is there any clear guidelines as to what is formally required to do such work?

 

thanks and this will hopefully make good reading

 

Steve

[Amelanchier]

In short - No, none.

 

Bit of a current thorny issue though.

[Bundle 2]

In short - No, none.

 

Bit of a current thorny issue though.

True enough in absolute terms maybe...but you could still be found to have been negligent, as I believe you posted in a slightly diffrent guise on another thread Tony...which is right and proper imo!!

 

Steve, if this is a serious question, I suggest turning to the BS standards for guidelines, noting I reckon their language and scratching an interpretation this way.....No doubt there will be many an opinion to follow!!

Edited January 17, 2009 by Bundle 2

[Amelanchier]

True enough in absolute terms maybe...but you could still be found to have been negligent, as I believe you posted in a slightly diffrent guise on another thread Tony...which is right and proper imo!!

 

Steve, if this is a serious question, I suggest turning to the BS standards for guidelines, noting I reckon their language and scratching an interpretation this way.....No doubt there will be many an opinion to follow!!

 

Indeed Tim - ultimatley though; it rests on a judgement of competentance and reasonable practicality.

 

The BS avoid being too prescriptive - "...sufficient expertise..." "...recognised qualifications..." for example.

 

It is entirely possible for a judge to decide that it is reasonable for a large estate owner to have a few old forester/groundsmen wandering around on an ad hoc basis. On the other hand - its entirely possible for a Judge to decide that every tree on a large estate should have a detailed basal inspection regardless of ditches and brambles...

[Amelanchier]

And as we've noted before on this forum. Its just as possible to be a competent inspector with a degree and no experience as it is with 40 years experience and no quals.

 

I think the best approach is a healthy blend of both.

[Bundle 2]

Cool...Off topic a bit though.

 

":what legal requirements do you presently need to do this? "

 

As U say, none. The bs provides a guideline, the judge will need to be as coherent in his application of these recs as does the inspector, and there will be no definitive answer...I say Vive la difference....

Which leads me to another issue with regards the inspections. There are recognised quals in this respect. It only comes to court in the event of incident...too late to all intents and purposes imo. ( Not that much cannot be usefully determined from such...) But that this leads to a few too many loopholes thru which to slip....

Employers have as much "duty" as the inspector to ensure the right people are doing jobs for which they are qualified...negligence for me ( and this is an opinion and has no basis in law as far as I am aware....) falls to both, employer & employee ( for sake of argument...contractor whatever...! ) I can see no other intended interpretation of the law?

[Bundle 2]

" ndeed Tim - ultimatley though; it rests on a judgement of competentance and reasonable practicality. "

 

Does it? Really? Cos I would nt mind bettin' plenty inspections are never scrutinised to such an extent....

 

"So is there any clear guidelines as to what is formally required to do such work? "

 

You can almost say "being asked/reqiuired "

Landowners are expected to comply with "Owners/Occupiers liability Act 1957/84 " and as Tony says, an estate may see one approach as adequate whereas another may indeed not see the same level of management as appropriate....but reading these laws will enhance your interpretation....

An idea that is central to this law is a one word, superbly vague notion...Reasonable...

[Amelanchier]

Perhaps worth noting though that there is now a "recognised qualification" in inspecting trees. The Lantra PTI - complete with syllabus specifically designed to fill a qual gap?!?

 

I doubt we'll ever have a industry set standard for this, as the risk we manage is such a small piece of the pie. We can certainly progress our own 'best practice' but it'll never be codified in a definitve document by the powers that be.

[Bundle 2]

" I doubt we'll ever have a industry set standard for this ....."

 

For as long as laws are continued to be generated and the HSE deems it necessary, standards are a logical extension of the "litigious" animal...and whilst not strictly industry lead...this will need to be expertly informed if it is to have any real basis or place in the physical world....?

Consider the QTRA system for example....a "not necessarily arborist lead tree risk quantification system ".....Or are we saying you need to be qualified and so trained to do a certain job....god forbid!!

Edited January 17, 2009 by Bundle 2

[Amelanchier]

You don't always need fully qualified and experienced arbs to inspect trees. The courts have shown that they are happy (in some circumstances) to discharge the duty of care on the basis of a layman / basic opinion.

 

Now, I'm not saying that applies to all circumstances but that's kind of where we're going with some recent cases and the Lantra Basic tree inspection course (note a course not a qual)...

 

I don't think we can afford to be too precious over tree inspection. There aren't enough of us.