Terms and conditions-Protected species

[gibbon]

I want to add to my terms and conditions for my quotes to include provisions for protected species. We do a habitat assesment for each job which is included on the quote. Want I want is to state that it would be the clients resposibility to cover any additional man hours and any costs associated with calling in an expert ecologist if protected species are discovered unexpectedly during works.

 

Is this enforceable? Does anyone else have this and how would I word it correctly?

[Mac McLennan]

QUOTE- Want I want is to state that it would be the clients resposibility to cover any additional man hours and any costs associated with calling in an expert ecologist if protected species are discovered unexpectedly during works -QUOTE

 

COULD READ -

"It is the clients resposibility to cover any additional man hours and any costs associated with calling in an expert ecologist if protected species are discovered unexpectedly during works"

 

You cannot make them do anything IMO. But you can walk away if you don't need the work.

[Dean Lofthouse]

It's a hard one that, it could also put them off your quote ?

[gibbon]

I guess its possible that it could put some off. What I was thinking was that if you give a price to dismantle and remove a tree but find a colony of bats in the process.

 

If there was no evidence that protected species were present before we started why should we as contractors have to foot the bill for bringing in other proffesional to deal with a protected species on someones elses property?

 

You can't just walk away halfway through a job so it should be clear what you should you be in that position.

[Will Hinchliffe]

There is an article written by Andrew Cowan called "Dont fall foul of the wildlife law" that includes some paragraphs that his company attach to their quotes explain to the client the responsibilities Arborists have towards wildlife. It doesn't include anything about who will foot the bill for any extra work but it is well worded. As it was written in 2002 it doesn't take into account the changes to the Habitats regulations 2007.

 

ArborEcology.co.uk ::: Articles

[Amelanchier]

There is an article written by Andrew Cowan called "Dont fall foul of the wildlife law" that includes some paragraphs that his company attach to their quotes explain to the client the responsibilities Arborists have towards wildlife. It doesn't include anything about who will foot the bill for any extra work but it is well worded. As it was written in 2002 it doesn't take into account the changes to the Habitats regulations 2007.

 

ArborEcology.co.uk ::: Articles

 

Or the Habitat Regs 2009 Amendments!!!!

Here's a handy FAQ from DEFRA regarding the latest changes...

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdf/protection/habitats-qa09.pdf

 

Or if you have some time / braincells to kill, the full regs! Yawn.

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 No. 6

 

Basically the biggest change IMO is that the regs now state:-

 

"(12) Guidance as to the application of the offences in paragraph (1)(b) or (d) in relation to particular species of animals or particular activities may be published by—

 

(a) the Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the Welsh Ministers (in relation to Wales); or

(b) the appropriate nature conservation body, with the approval of the Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the Welsh Ministers (in relation to Wales).

(13) In proceedings for an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (d), a court shall take into account any relevant guidance published under paragraph (12)"

 

It will therefore be assumed that if guidance exists - you will have followed it!!!

Edited June 5, 2009 by Amelanchier

[Dean Lofthouse]

I guess its possible that it could put some off. What I was thinking was that if you give a price to dismantle and remove a tree but find a colony of bats in the process.

 

You can't just walk away halfway through a job so it should be clear what you should you be in that position.

 

 

I have many time had to walk away and leave a job halfway through for a few weeks because of nesting birds and have been really peeved that the customer always expects you the arborist to stand the lost time.

 

What they dont realise is that they may only have to stand the cost once, you the arborist have to stand the cost loads of time with all different customers

 

I understand fully what your saying but it's a difficult choice as it may lose you quite a bit of work. If you only give verbal quotes and they are accepted, you could then follow up with a written quote with the small print on the back.

[Will Hinchliffe]

Cheers for that Tony. I was not aware of the 2009 amendments.

 

Here is a link to the interim guidance the Forestry Commission has published. I presume when these are finalised they would be the guidelines that would be referred to in court when prosecuting someone for an offence.

 

They seem to move away from the idea that you need an expert bat survey when only potential bat roost sites are present, unless you are removing a quantity of trees with potential roost sites. They do say that if you are altering the canopy around a known bat roost it may be necessary to apply for a licence.

 

Generally seems to be a very good document but primarily concerned with woodland operations.

 

Hopefully all this is to current to come into the tech cert exam on Wednesday.

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/business-management/7852-terms-conditions-protected-species.html

Edited June 6, 2009 by Will Hinchliffe
forgot the link

[Mesterh]

I think it unfair on the customer to have any variations, uplifts or additional costs to your quote unless they change the job spec or they cause any delays problems etc.

 

I quote £500 to do something thats what the customer will pay, had to stop quite a few jobs over last few weeks because of nesting birds, my prob not the customer, I will still make money on the job.

[gibbon]

I'm not fussed about stopping for birds, we also do it all the time. Its the additional costs and time to work around bats. I'm sure roofers have the same trouble and I am sure they would ammend their original price if they discovered bats, so why shouldn't we?