Invalid TPOs

[martwizz]

I have been reading up on tree law, and the scope for mistakes when producing a TPO is fairly large. Applying the wrong year of Regulations, wrong address, wrong species, and so on.

 

Has anybody ever looked into a TPO, found it invalid, and challenged it or gone ahead with works? Does anybody do this as regular practice?

 

I can't imagine it would make you particularly popular with the LA, but an improperly applied TPO is not legally binding.

[Kev Stephenson]

Looks like it would be an easy way to get on the TO's hit list, any apps you submit may find their way to the bottom of the pile and any potential contracts available may miss your postbox.

[woody paul]

There's a few Oaks in the Colchester district with the wrong species name on there maps.

Was thinking what would happen if you carried out work with out applying.

[treebloke]

I have come accross TPO plans/schedules with the wrong species and the tree officer has conceded and let them go. To be fair they were not great trees so it was not a big deal, I think if they had been good specimens we would have had a much bigger debate.

[skyhuck]

Looks like it would be an easy way to get on the TO's hit list, any apps you submit may find their way to the bottom of the pile and any potential contracts available may miss your postbox.

 

Just get the client to sort it or use a third party

[Stubby]

Just get the client to sort it or use a third party

 

Sensible advice me thinks ........

[Nimby]

I'm sure I once had a case where it turned out that the TPO Plan overrides the Schedule. What that means is that if T1 is listed as the wrong species it is still covered by the order if it's in the right place on the plan.

 

This would need confirming as it was a long time ago!

[Gary Prentice]

The last changes means that the plan takes precedence.