qualified surveyor v. experienced tree surgeon

[treesrus]

a friend's large beech recently dropped a huge branch onto the main road utside his house. luckily, no damage was done. the question is who to call for advice as this could have been a serious incident, (death of motorist?), my own experience is that for legal reasons the qualified surveyor will do a written and legal statement, but the tree surgeon has a better idea of what to do with the tree in question. any thoughts???

[sloth]

A surveyor who started life as (or still is also) a tree surgeon. Your friend in north Wales? Give Treevolution or Fairly Arb a call..

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Arbtalk mobile app

[Paul Cleaver]

A surveyor who started life as (or still is also) a tree surgeon.

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Arbtalk mobile app

agreed

[Chris at eden]

I also agree but I would as that is the way I came through.

 

In reality anyone carrying out detailed tree inspections should have a level 3 arb qualification. This is discussed in the NTSG guidance in relation to LA inspectors but I think this can be applied across the board. I think this would be reasonable. We also have a bench mark qualification for professional tree inspection in the Lantra PTI certificate. The pre-requisite for entry to the training is an L3 arb qualification so again that seems reasonable. These are issues a judge would look at when he was considering a claim, was the inspector appropriately qualified. There are some really good tree surgeons out there with good knowledge but how would you sell that to a judge without the qualifications to back up what they are saying.

 

I cover some parts of Wales so pm me if you need anything.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Cheers,

[ScottF]

A surveyor who started life as (or still is also) a tree surgeon. Your friend in north Wales? Give Treevolution or Fairly Arb a call..

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Arbtalk mobile app

 

Cheers, Slothster

[Ruskins Trees]

The real question is who has indemnity insurance. As I understand it although anyone can give advice, it is only when they have indemnity insurance that their advice can be relied on (in the sense if it is wrong you can sue them and the insurance company should pay out (ideally)).

 

This is why clients should always specify the works they require and contractors without indemnity insurance should never offer recommendations, as if it is wrong...they can be sued and not covered by indemnity insurance.

[DarrenSiemsen]

Agreed with Chris.

 

Level 3 arb qualification is a must for proper evaluation of the site. Just call a reliable and reputed tree management company near your place and they can guide you better. They know all legal requirements.

[Chris at eden]

The real question is who has indemnity insurance. As I understand it although anyone can give advice, it is only when they have indemnity insurance that their advice can be relied on (in the sense if it is wrong you can sue them and the insurance company should pay out (ideally)).

 

This is why clients should always specify the works they require and contractors without indemnity insurance should never offer recommendations, as if it is wrong...they can be sued and not covered by indemnity insurance.

 

This again comes back to qualifications. You wont get PI without appropriate quals. Its one of the issues they really probe about when you get a quote. Especially if you are doing mortgage reports.

[Chris at eden]

Agreed with Chris.

 

Level 3 arb qualification is a must for proper evaluation of the site. Just call a reliable and reputed tree management company near your place and they can guide you better. They know all legal requirements.

 

I read somewhere that this is about to become a legal requirement in oz? something to do with an incident at a school?

[ScottF]

PTI seems to increasingly be coming up as a benchmark of competence for those inspecting trees on tenders and job descriptions, and I tend to agree, provided it's coupled with some other vocational training (ND Arb, Tech Cert etc). If you're willing to pay the fee, take three days off work, undergo some pretty vigorous training and undertake an exam that's far from a cakewalk, then it suggests that it's a discipline you're committed to.

 

Your point that a tree surgeon "knows what to do" may be right, but as one who works both on the tools and as a consultant I'd say that a contractor may come up with a different solution than a consultant would for a variety of reasons. Who's to say which is right? A consultant solely providing advice may be willing to be less risk-averse than a contractor who doesn't want a callback on a tree they've worked on, for example

 

Not all consultants come out of college never having had experience of real practical arboriculture, although I share your concerns about those who do- and it's a growing trend, unfortunately.