Giving back offcuts to owners?

[treequip]

If we agree that the branches were trespassing but the nuisance was not actionable (e.g. no damage was being caused) and the aggrieved party has the right to mitigate the nuisance by cutting them off and they remain the property of the tree owner then I would say the tree owner could be approached for the disposal cost if they do not accept them back. However they are now waste and must be dispose properly.

 

This perennial problem will only be settled if some warring neighbours take it as far as the high court and get a precedent set.

 

In the meanwhile talk to neighbour first, tell them what work will be done, ask if they want any of the arisings and if not dispose of them as normal.

 

 

Its not the remit of the contractor the to negotiate with the tree owner, and its not the best idea even if the client asks you to do it because you are dealing with an issue that can cost your client a decent sum of money

 

Advise your client of their options and go with their instructions.

 

If they want the cost of disposal separated on the invoice do that and let the client sort the rest out with the tree owner.

[skyhuck]

Its not the remit of the contractor the to negotiate with the tree owner, and its not the best idea even if the client asks you to do it because you are dealing with an issue that can cost your client a decent sum of money

 

Advise your client of their options and go with their instructions.

 

If they want the cost of disposal separated on the invoice do that and let the client sort the rest out with the tree owner.

 

I disagree.

 

Often when neighbours don't get on you can be seen as a neutral party (so long as you treat them with curtsy and respect) and will deal with you in more reasonable manner than they would their neighbour.

 

Just the other day I was stump grinding and dust went over a high fence and covered a neighbours car, as soon as I realised I when to see the neighbour and offered to clean the car, he was fine about it and said there was no need to clean the car and thanked me for going round.

 

When the I told the client they were amazed, they said he was a terrible neighbour and they could not understand why he had not gone mad??

[treequip]

I disagree.

 

Often when neighbours don't get on you can be seen as a neutral party (so long as you treat them with curtsy and respect) and will deal with you in more reasonable manner than they would their neighbour.

 

Just the other day I was stump grinding and dust went over a high fence and covered a neighbours car, as soon as I realised I when to see the neighbour and offered to clean the car, he was fine about it and said there was no need to clean the car and thanked me for going round.

 

When the I told the client they were amazed, they said he was a terrible neighbour and they could not understand why he had not gone mad??

 

That's not quite the same thing though is it?

 

You ducked up and went round to put it right, that's the right thing to do and probably avoided an issue. No cost implication to the client and not getting involved in, what is usually a long standing issue over the trespass

 

Getting involved in negotiations over branch trespass is a job for a mediator or a tree surgeon with a lot of spare time:laugh1:

[skyhuck]

That's not quite the same thing though is it?

 

You ducked up and went round to put it right, that's the right thing to do and probably avoided an issue. No cost implication to the client and not getting involved in, what is usually a long standing issue over the trespass

 

Getting involved in negotiations over branch trespass is a job for a mediator or a tree surgeon with a lot of spare time

 

That really has not been my experience.

[openspaceman]

Its not the remit of the contractor the to negotiate with the tree owner, and its not the best idea even if the client asks you to do it because you are dealing with an issue that can cost your client a decent sum of money

 

Advise your client of their options and go with their instructions.

 

If they want the cost of disposal separated on the invoice do that and let the client sort the rest out with the tree owner.

 

Probably but I was thinking as the land owner rather than a contractor. Yes the contract for the work would be with the landowner client and there would be none other than a duty of care with the neighbour.

[daltontrees]

The important thing to remember about Tort and Common Law, is that it is benchmarked and judged against the dutiful actions of a reasonable person

 

There are no real set rules of what one must or must not do, but if someone doesn't act reasonably and causes a tort to another, then the other party can seek recompense from that person that their unreasonable actions caused a loss.

 

So the established standpoint is that they are "obliged to offer" the arrisings back to the owner. And the owner can of course say "no thanks". This negates the historic principles of theft, that came about from when wood/fruit had a substantial value.

 

As for dumping the arisings over the fence, regardless of the neighbour saying "no thanks", it would depend the consequences of throwing it back over.

 

For example if it was thrown over and smashed the neighbours green house, then they would have grounds for a claim. If it was council land, then the council could pursue for fly tipping, or if ended up on the footpath could pursue for obstruction under the highways act. If it was simply thrown onto an open expansion of the neighbours lawn and caused no loss or damage, then apart from causing a feud, there's no real grounds for a claim.

 

If all else fails, try and avoid being dragged into any dispute between neighbours, and just stick to what you believe is reasonable.

 

 

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Arbtalk mobile app

 

A very mature view and I agree, but I'm glad to say I've never had a situation turn sour and be tested in courts.

 

But out of curiosity, what is your view of what should happen if the cost of removing the arisings chucked over the fence was as much as £1,000 and the tree owner wanted to raise an action to recover this cost of removal? cost of

[daltontrees]

why let your trees over grow onto other peoples land it not right thanks Jon

Trees 101: It's not wrong (legally) either.

[Andy Clark]

A very mature view and I agree, but I'm glad to say I've never had a situation turn sour and be tested in courts.

 

But out of curiosity, what is your view of what should happen if the cost of removing the arisings chucked over the fence was as much as £1,000 and the tree owner wanted to raise an action to recover this cost of removal? cost of

 

In that respect I'm not sure to be honest. I think, and don't quote me here, that the tree owner would have grounds to recover the cost - even though the branches are their own.

 

Simply because there was no obligation on him to not let the branches overhang, so did not have a duty to keep the tree/hedge sides up to the boundary - thus has suffered a loss that he had no legal obligation to suffer.

 

And similar with the neighbour, In as far that personally i don't believe that the client would have grounds to recover the cost of disposal, or impose that the tree owner pick up the tab.

 

I know others have suggested differently, however there is no stipulation that the neighbour must not let his tree branches overhang a third parties property - the stipulation is only that what ever branches do overhang, do not cause an actionable nuisance. (Health and safety risk, direct damage, indirect damage).

 

And even then, the neighbour is only obliged to remove/remedy the nuisance. If that nuisance is one dead branch that is causing a health and safety risk, he only need remove that one offending branch, not side up the whole tree. Same with anything causing damage - he only need negate and remedy the damage, not landscape the entire garden or rebuild the entire house.

 

If the third party choses that they do not want the branches overhanging their property, then that is their choice and I believe they are bound by all that goes with that choice.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Andy Clark

[treequip]

In that respect I'm not sure to be honest. I think, and don't quote me here, that the tree owner would have grounds to recover the cost - even though the branches are their own.

 

Simply because there was no obligation on him to not let the branches overhang, so did not have a duty to keep the tree/hedge sides up to the boundary - thus has suffered a loss that he had no legal obligation to suffer.

 

And similar with the neighbour, In as far that personally i don't believe that the client would have grounds to recover the cost of disposal, or impose that the tree owner pick up the tab.

 

I know others have suggested differently, however there is no stipulation that the neighbour must not let his tree branches overhang a third parties property - the stipulation is only that what ever branches do overhang, do not cause an actionable nuisance. (Health and safety risk, direct damage, indirect damage).

 

And even then, the neighbour is only obliged to remove/remedy the nuisance. If that nuisance is one dead branch that is causing a health and safety risk, he only need remove that one offending branch, not side up the whole tree. Same with anything causing damage - he only need negate and remedy the damage, not landscape the entire garden or rebuild the entire house.

 

If the third party choses that they do not want the branches overhanging their property, then that is their choice and I believe they are bound by all that goes with that choice.

 

It has been done. I have a developer client who went up against a commercial property next door to his development, the overhang from a huuuuge connie hedge was substantial.

 

The owner was offered the chance to deal with it and didn't so the developer billed then filed SCC which they settled before judgement having taken legal advice. Clearly not a precedent but.......

 

The hedge was removed after the houses were built and the new owners complained ad infinitum.

[Andy Clark]

It has been done. I have a developer client who went up against a commercial property next door to his development, the overhang from a huuuuge connie hedge was substantial.

 

The owner was offered the chance to deal with it and didn't so the developer billed then filed SCC which they settled before judgement having taken legal advice. Clearly not a precedent but.......

 

The hedge was removed after the houses were built and the new owners complained ad infinitum.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't take that as read really. 5837 "should" have played a part in that in respect to the planning consent in the first place.

 

Sounds like a rare occasion that slipped/was blagged through the net to me.