Hypothetically.. whos liable?

[urbandekay]

If the tree fell before a formal application could reasonable be regarded to have completed then I believe the TP officer is liable, if not the householder

[daltontrees]

If the tree fell before a formal application could reasonable be regarded to have completed then I believe the TP officer is liable, if not the householder

 

That can't be the case, surely? That would put LAs in an almost impossible position.

 

I'll hava alook at the new Regulations.

[treequip]

If the tree fell before a formal application could reasonable be regarded to have completed then I believe the TP officer is liable, if not the householder

 

Not the case

 

Ultimately the owner of the tree is liable, subject to reasonable foreseeability unless he has placed reliance on advice from another party.

 

The TO should advise on what they would consider acceptable under the TPO, its up to the tree owner to get his own expert opinion.

[Andy Clark]

Be very careful with this.......

 

I know of a large consultancy firm that got sued, after they failed to utilise the 5 day notice period for a tree that they'd identified as being defective.

 

The tree was a large mature tpo'd oak, identified as having a large over-heavy limb with a significant cavity and decay near the trunk. They made recommendations to heavily reduce the limb - but the limb snapped out, hitting a neighbouring resident, while they were still negotiating the consent for the reduction with the local T/O.

 

The consultancy firm were sued, on the basis that they had been employed as professionals, and in the course of their work had identified the defect but failed to take the relevant steps to rectify it - I.e, because it was dangerous, they should have ignored the consent process, and just submitted a 5 day notice.

 

On the same basis then, I would suggest that you too have been employed as a professional, to give advice to your client - who would therefore have a claim against you if your advice is then found to be not sufficient.

 

If, as the professional, you believe the tree is dicey, don't waste time negotiating consent, for works that you don't need consent for. If you think the stability of the tree has been compromised and is at risk of collapse, then you can of course take whatever reasonable steps are required to rectify that risk under the 5 day notice.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Arbtalk mobile app

[urbandekay]

Not the case

 

Ultimately the owner of the tree is liable, subject to reasonable foreseeability unless he has placed reliance on advice from another party.

 

The TO should advise on what they would consider acceptable under the TPO, its up to the tree owner to get his own expert opinion.

 

Yes, imagine though if the owner had acted on the advise of a TP officer who advised he make a formal application but the tree fell before the application could be made. Then it could be argued that the owner had acted on advice of the TP officer and thus the office was liable.

 

That the owner in this case didn't choose to act on that advice would make the owner liable BUT if the tree fell before a formal application could reasonably be expected to have been processed, then surely the owner could claim that had he acted on the advice of the TP officer then he would be in the same predicament and that the TP officer should have allowed immediate removal

[daltontrees]

Yes, imagine though if the owner had acted on the advise of a TP officer who advised he make a formal application but the tree fell before the application could be made. Then it could be argued that the owner had acted on advice of the TP officer and thus the office was liable.

 

That the owner in this case didn't choose to act on that advice would make the owner liable BUT if the tree fell before a formal application could reasonably be expected to have been processed, then surely the owner could claim that had he acted on the advice of the TP officer then he would be in the same predicament and that the TP officer should have allowed immediate removal

 

I see whaty you are getting at but the tests to be applied to such situations are so clearly set out in legislation that it would be very very hard to build a case solely around reliance on the TO's advice. And the TO is there not to advise on what the owner should do but what he believes the Council's position would be in the event of a 5 day notice or an application. That might sound like advice but it's what the TO would advise the Council to do not what the owner shoudl do to discharge the duty of care within the satutory rules.

[skyhuck]

I had a customer with a HC with bleeding canker that shed a limb, I advised they send in a 5 day notice, the TO responded with a threat of legal action if we felled, the tree then shed another limb, the TO then issued the owner with a notice to fell within 7 day or the council would and bill her

[treequip]

I had a customer with a HC with bleeding canker that shed a limb, I advised they send in a 5 day notice, the TO responded with a threat of legal action if we felled, the tree then shed another limb, the TO then issued the owner with a notice to fell within 7 day or the council would and bill her

 

But that's just what they do, its a standard response. Anyone working on a 5 day notice has to justify their actions or risk prosecution.

[skyhuck]

But that's just what they do, its a standard response. Anyone working on a 5 day notice has to justify their actions or risk prosecution.

 

I've only had it once in 20 years.

 

How the hell do you prove the tree would have failed once its been felled?? all very subjective, IMO.

[treequip]

I've only had it once in 20 years.

 

How the hell do you prove the tree would have failed once its been felled?? all very subjective, IMO.

 

You don't have to prove that the tree would have failed. The exemption is for dead and dangerous so that's what you need to prove.