Hypothetical teaser

[treequip]

And then do every CA in the borough.

 

And every borough in the country:laugh1:

[skyhuck]

Could they check with the land registry and just TPO the trees worth TPOing on the notifiers land?

[treequip]

Could they check with the land registry and just TPO the trees worth TPOing on the notifiers land?

 

Well I could notify on all trees and it would be valid for all the trees regardless of who owned the land

[skyhuck]

Well I could notify on all trees and it would be valid for all the trees regardless of who owned the land

 

Yes, but is it likely I'm going to be felling them if there not on my land and I'm not a contractor??

[Andy Clark]

Simples......

 

Bang out an area order, and then in the notification to the affected properties stick in a covering letter along the lines of -

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Further to the S211 notice received from your agent, Person A, 123 Any Street, Any Town, anywhere, AB1 2CD, we hereby inform you that.........

 

 

And then see how many of them take their wrath on Person A, for getting a TPO stuck on their property - leaving the TO all the time I'm the world to wander around the area in peace, identifying how many individual orders need to be made.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Gary Prentice]

Yes, but is it likely I'm going to be felling them if there not on my land and I'm not a contractor??

 

Did you read the first post?

To disguise the intention to fell a tree that the LA would tpo, what would happen if you notified to fell every tree on the CA

 

Council would have to make an area order, lettering every address within six weeks!

[daltontrees]

Can you show me where the act says that?

I cna't show you it because the Act (well, I suppose I mean that Scottish equivalent of the Act) doesn't say that. What I meant was it is an offence to fell tree in a TPO area, the CA rules say the offence and the penalty is the same as for TPOs, the CA rule says a person is exempt from prosecution only if 'he' served notice beforehand. So, unless he or his agent served the notice, if he then allows the tree to be felled by someone other than his agent, surely he has committed an offence?

Anyway it was just a thought in the hypothetical scenario. And English legislation differs from ours.

[Amelanchier]

Simples......

 

Bang out an area order, and then in the notification to the affected properties stick in a covering letter along the lines of -

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Further to the S211 notice received from your agent, Person A, 123 Any Street, Any Town, anywhere, AB1 2CD, we hereby inform you that.........

 

 

And then see how many of them take their wrath on Person A, for getting a TPO stuck on their property - leaving the TO all the time I'm the world to wander around the area in peace, identifying how many individual orders need to be made.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

Possibly simples but tree owners can't object to person A so while the TO is out wandering around objection letters are piling up on the TO's desk. Speaking from experience they would come thick and fast regardless of any covering letter explaining the situation.

 

Also I'd have to check but while there certainly is an obligation to keep a public record of applications and notifications I'm not sure if the data protection act allows the LPA to mailshot Person A's address in that manner. The s211 did not state that Person A was the residents agent so that could be a risky strategy.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Amelanchier

[Amelanchier]

I cna't show you it because the Act (well, I suppose I mean that Scottish equivalent of the Act) doesn't say that. What I meant was it is an offence to fell tree in a TPO area, the CA rules say the offence and the penalty is the same as for TPOs, the CA rule says a person is exempt from prosecution only if 'he' served notice beforehand. So, unless he or his agent served the notice, if he then allows the tree to be felled by someone other than his agent, surely he has committed an offence?

Anyway it was just a thought in the hypothetical scenario. And English legislation differs from ours.

 

And its that transferring of defence that constitutes the threat in this case. It happens every day with one party providing the notification and another doing the work but doesn't seem to be the letter of the law...

Edited January 8, 2013 by Amelanchier

[daltontrees]

Ahhh, but what I was suggesting is that it IS the letter of the law that CA notices are not retrospectively assignable. Fell based on a notice by someone other than yourself or your agent and it may well be an offence. I think that examination after the offence that found that the 'agency' was constituted after the notice was served would destroy your defence.

Please don't press me on the English legislation though, it was very begrudgingly that I learnt it all for the AATech law exams knowing that it would firstly be no use to me in Scotland and secondly it would make it harder to remember the Scottish rules which I use weekly.