Trees next to us

[tarzan]

if it was my house I would get them inspected and if deemed dangerous then inform the owner regardless of wether he said not to go on his land. It's your family in that house not his. If those tree are deemed dangerous and he refuses to act on the given evidence then your in your right to act for the safety of your family and send him the bill.

[daltontrees]

If those tree are deemed dangerous and he refuses to act on the given evidence then your in your right to act for the safety of your family and send him the bill.

 

You would think that you would be within your rights to do that but that's not what the law says... however unfair it might seem.

[treequip]

if it was my house I would get them inspected and if deemed dangerous then inform the owner regardless of wether he said not to go on his land. It's your family in that house not his. If those tree are deemed dangerous and he refuses to act on the given evidence then your in your right to act for the safety of your family and send him the bill.

 

As others have said, completely wrong on both counts

[treequip]

Our house is next to a hillside that has some rather large trees on it. I had the council tree specialist out to look at it a month or so ago and he said that the trees should be surveyed every couple of years normally but since the hillside is so steep he would suggest they should be done every year.

 

I contacted the land owner who has come come back to me to say that he checks them regularly for problems (I've never seen him down here, we're at the end of a private road and you notice people coming and going and as far as I'm aware he has no qualifications with regards to trees) and he is not going to get a survey done and he is happy they are not any issues. We're planning to put our young son in a bedroom (at some point in the next year or so) that would be under the fall path of a large beach tree with a slight twist in the trunk and I asked the council tree specialist if he's put his kids in that room and his response was no. I've asked him for his thoughts on the response I got from the land owner and I'm waiting to hear back from him. I just wondered what your guys thoughts on it were? We're in Scotland if that makes any difference.

 

Cheers

 

There isn't a lot you can do about this, the best you can do is to formally remind the tree owner of their duty of care to others.

 

In this case it may extend to a third party inspection of the trees.

 

If that fails your only option will be to pay for a report yourself and forward it to the tree owner.

 

Assuming there are recommendations in the report that pertain to the health and safety of your property, a letter putting him on notice may galvanise some action. It might be wise to get this drafted by a lawyer

[Inoff the Red]

My understanding is that every landowner has a common law duty of care to ensure that trees on their property do not pose an unacceptable risk to adjacent properties. A landowner may however, only be liable for injury or damage caused by trees if they are found to be negligent. Landowners should take reasonable care to inspect trees and/or undertake essential safety work and maintenance.

 

I suggest that you try and get the council tree chap to let you have his opinion in writing, then give a copy of this advice to the owner of the trees. It may also be worth having a survey done (without committing trespass) if that is possible. If the council advice and tree survey suggest the need for action, I then suggest advising the landowner making the point that having put him on notice that his trees require an inspection/thinning he may now be deemed to be negligent should he fail to act and any damage is subsequently caused by the offending trees. This bit is probably best done in writing and sent recorded delivery so he cannot at some future date deny knowledge of your concerns. (*)

 

In England & Wales a local authority can act unilaterally to deal with a dangerous tree and recover the costs from the landowner. It may be worth contacting your local citizens advice bureau to see if there is a Scottish equivalent.

 

In my experience of dispute resolution, even the most cocky bugger tends to put their sensible head on when it starts to look as though they may be on the wrong end of a negligence claim (although I appreciate this may be of little comfort if part of your house is reduced to a pile of rubble).

 

 

(*) There was a recent law report on tree damage and negligence that (from memory) put landowners firmly in the cross-hairs if they failed to act when they should have known that remedial work was needed…..if i can remember where I read it I'll post a link

[daltontrees]

As I have already said, there is no scottish equivalent to the english/welsh legislation.

 

A useful recent case that discussed liability in the face of evidence of tree defects is Selwyn Smith v Gompels 2009.

[ChrisG]

So you've extended/built adjacent to mature trees and now want to change how you use the building and as a result, want the trees to be pruned or felled at the owners expense so your son can have a new bedroom?

 

What about the 200 years worth of tree? If they are that bad, would the reasonable person put buildings/people at risk in the first place?

 

Not being negative, just trying to make you see things from the tree, the courts and the owners point of view.

[ScottF]

You could have a report produced by a competent person and then if any defects are identified, send a request to undertake the work, plus a copy of the report by recorded delivery. Assuming he signs for it, then if any loss-producing tree event will have been proved to have been preventable, since he will have been warned of any safety issues and how to hopefully abate them.

 

This approach isn't without shortcomings or limitation, but would be relatively inexpensive to implement. Even tree consultants' rate pale into insignificance when compared to those of solicitors...