Legally enforce inspection?

[treequip]

I'm not certain this is correct. Can you really absolve yourself of a duty of care by saying 'yes, I know my property presents a hazard to yours - come and sort it out yourself if you're bothered'?

 

I am certain this isnt correct.

 

It kinda ignores the duty of care to others element.

 

You cant just wash your hands of a liability like that.

[HCR]

I am certain this isnt correct.

 

It kinda ignores the duty of care to others element.

 

You cant just wash your hands of a liability like that.

 

Sorry, I was being gentle. You are quite right, it's as wrong as a wrong thing.

[Jesse]

I'm not certain this is correct. Can you really absolve yourself of a duty of care by saying 'yes, I know my property presents a hazard to yours - come and sort it out yourself if you're bothered'?

 

Yes this is correct as long as you permit the works to resolve a quantifiable complaint , you can stipulate that the complainant foot the bill for the task, you could even stipulate terms such as wast disposal and appointed contractor. The poo would only hit the fan if the owner of a faulty tree ignored a complaint and refused permission and the tree subsequently failed as a result . The other consideration is predicting when a tree will fail? The occupiers liability act, its great toilet reading material.

[treequip]

Yes this is correct as long as you permit the works to resolve a quantifiable complaint , you can stipulate that the complainant foot the bill for the task, you could even stipulate terms such as wast disposal and appointed contractor. The poo would only hit the fan if the owner of a faulty tree ignored a complaint and refused permission and the tree subsequently failed as a result . The other consideration is predicting when a tree will fail? The occupiers liability act, its great toilet reading material.

 

Errrrrrr Others will put this better but I am kind of blunt, which is why I didn’t call your first posting for the nonsense it is but you are going too far now.

 

You are so far wrong on this I believe you are winding people up. If you have studied the occupiers liability act to the point of reading it on the bog how can you be ignorant of the common duty of care to others, it is after all only one of the underpinning facets of English case law.

 

I think you are full of it and ought to stop taking the pee, if that’s not the case you need to take a look at the advice you are dispensing with a view to your own duty of care to others.

 

For the record if you know (or ought to have known) that a tree (or anything else on your property that may affect others)is in a dangerous condition (whether you offer them the opportunity to deal with it at their own expense or not) you should act to take proper care to avoid causing injury to others (this will include damage to property). Telling the other party that they can deal with the problem at their own expense is tantamount to an admission of liability and just offering a lawyer a slam dunk.

[Jesse]

I am certain this isnt correct.

 

It kinda ignores the duty of care to others element.

 

You cant just wash your hands of a liability like that.

 

Occupiers liability act 1957 section 2 parts (1) (2) (4b) (5) He would be seen as unreasonable if he was to refuse permission- but not if he was to agree to YOUR demands but on his terms and at your expense, especially if he was in receipt of any benefits or was an old pensioner . In the eyes of the law this would be seen as 'Pure Omissions' No wind up and i will ignore your last post.

[HCR]

WTF??

 

Speaking as someone who has actually studied law to degree level (and I don't just mean a law module on an arb course, I'm talking an actual qualifying law degree), there is no way you can remove your duty of care to your neighbour (neighbour in the legal sense) by granting him a license to make good the dangerous condition of your property. You cannot transfer a legal duty to another in that way.

 

It is also perfectly reasonable to refuse to let someone onto your land to carry out work, unless life or limb is under immediate threat.

 

Picture this scenario - you live next door to a 40 storey tower block. One day you notice a large crack in the building so you point this out to the building's owner. He responds by telling you to feel free to fix it yourself, and that by his doing this it is now your problem if the tower block falls on your house.

 

Conversely, if you noticed the crack, rang up the owner and told him you were a builder and would fix it for him, he would be perfectly justified in telling you to do one.

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

Just noticed this thread.

Your insurer is the way to go with this. Assuming you are insured. They will do all the legwork i.e. liaise with your neighbours insurer, appoint an arboricultural consultant to inspect the tree, send out a loss adjuster etc. So there is no point in getting into a battle with your neighbour if your insurer's can sort it all out for you.

 

Please keep us informed of the outcome and feel free to post photos.

 

Good luck

[Paul Barton]

I think this case would depend on whether there is an actual danger or a perceived danger.

 

If the tree is confirmed as hazardous then the owner can't simply transfer liability to an affected third party. That would be nonsense.

 

....but I don't have a strong legal background so am prepared to be proved wrong....

[Jesse]

I think this case would depend on whether there is an actual danger or a perceived danger.

 

If the tree is confirmed as hazardous then the owner can't simply transfer liability to an affected third party. That would be nonsense.

 

....but I don't have a strong legal background so am prepared to be proved wrong....

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCMS025.pdf/$FILE/FCMS025.pdf

 

'Reasonable' - The key word, read the attached and think about it. I would consider the owner of the tree to be very reasonable to permit the works to go ahead at the neighbors expense, consider the target area and real level of risk and the underlying issue being more to do with 'nuisance'.

[Paul Barton]

Sure. I would still say that if the tree did pose an actual imminent risk to neighbouring properties, it would be 'reasonably foreseeable' that the tree could cause harm.

 

In which case surely a reasonable action would be to remove the hazard?

 

I think this discussion has jumped ahead a few steps though....it may be reasonable at this stage for the owner to allow access to his land for an inspection. If that inspection finds there is a real and imminent risk, the ball is back in the owner's court to either counter the inspection with a second opinion or take action to abate the risk.