Tree work on un-owned land

[blackwood]

Morning, I think I would be correct in assuming there is no such thing as un-owned land, someone, a local authority or institution will own it, personally I would opt for the, thanks but no thanks on this one chap.

 

Blackwood.

[Pete Bannister]

:sneaky2:""I have not investigated nor have I been entrusted to investigate ownership of the land, and your written (email) acceptance of this quote will imply that you have satisfied yourself that you have researched and obtained all necessary consents for us to carry out the work"

Or any other other definition of 'willful blindness' might do!

[Stubby]

if it was any of these guys who asked you, walk away, just walk away mate

 

 

Or officer Dribble err I mean Dibble will be after you ....

[twiglet]

Been asked to remove a tree in an alley that is on (apparently) unowned land. I appreciate this may be a slightly grey area but just wondered how you folks would go about this one. If indeed the land has no owner does anyone have the right to employ someone to remove a tree? Am I liable if they don't have the right? Etc.....

 

Maybe an obvious question,but are you asking because you think if you remove it, and someone comes along and says it's there land,and you removed it without there consent, you could be sued ???

[treefolk]

Maybe an obvious question,but are you asking because you think if you remove it, and someone comes along and says it's there land,and you removed it without there consent, you could be sued ???

 

Something like that.

[ReubenHayes]

Hi Treefolk,

 

Looks like its a bit of a sticky subject. As others have said, land will be owned by one person, organisation or body/trust. That means that permission from the land owner must be obtained before any works are carried out.

 

Not sure where the track leads from or to but if it is outside of the customers land ownership then you would need to speak to the land owner.

 

Un-adopted land could be for 3 reasons:

 

1) The County Council have owned/managed the land before 1970's (I think).

2) The Local Authority have owned the land/managed the before 1970's.

3) The land was owned by a person/company which have now ceased activity and the land has been automatically transferred to 'The Crown estate'.

 

If the track leads somewhere (i.e. from one street/road, Public Right of Way to another), then it is likely to come under the LA or County Council.

 

If it just leads to some garages or waste ground then it is likely to be private. t could be that the residents own a proportion of the land if it leads to a garage or something.

 

With regards to you requesting that the owner gives you something in writing, I would certainly get a detailed response from a legal representative. I think the law would say, do you normally request this from your clients? Probably not. Therefore why did you ask for it this time? Because you thought it wasn't the Clients land? Well in which case why did you carryout the works!

 

This is the same case as for working on trees with a TPO/CA, do you just take the clients word that the trees are not protected? If that's the case, you as the tree surgeon can not use that as your defence in court.

 

I would say Blackwood is correct, walk away from the job not worth getting into hot water for a simple job.

 

(otherwise, early Saturday morning. In a hired van, with no identification, and cash in hand)

[treefolk]

Hi Treefolk,

 

Looks like its a bit of a sticky subject. As others have said, land will be owned by one person, organisation or body/trust. That means that permission from the land owner must be obtained before any works are carried out.

 

Not sure where the track leads from or to but if it is outside of the customers land ownership then you would need to speak to the land owner.

 

Un-adopted land could be for 3 reasons:

 

1) The County Council have owned/managed the land before 1970's (I think).

2) The Local Authority have owned the land/managed the before 1970's.

3) The land was owned by a person/company which have now ceased activity and the land has been automatically transferred to 'The Crown estate'.

 

If the track leads somewhere (i.e. from one street/road, Public Right of Way to another), then it is likely to come under the LA or County Council.

 

If it just leads to some garages or waste ground then it is likely to be private. t could be that the residents own a proportion of the land if it leads to a garage or something.

 

With regards to you requesting that the owner gives you something in writing, I would certainly get a detailed response from a legal representative. I think the law would say, do you normally request this from your clients? Probably not. Therefore why did you ask for it this time? Because you thought it wasn't the Clients land? Well in which case why did you carryout the works!

 

This is the same case as for working on trees with a TPO/CA, do you just take the clients word that the trees are not protected? If that's the case, you as the tree surgeon can not use that as your defence in court.

 

I would say Blackwood is correct, walk away from the job not worth getting into hot water for a simple job.

 

(otherwise, early Saturday morning. In a hired van, with no identification, and cash in hand)

 

Thanks for the detailed response. Seems to make a lot of sense. I certainly won't go ahead without speaking to the council etc. No word yet though so someone may have quoted cheaper, good luck to them!

[Mountain man]

Reuben Hayes is bang on.

Is this a self sown Ash/sycamore rubbish tree or something that has been planted?

[daltontrees]

With regards to you requesting that the owner gives you something in writing, I would certainly get a detailed response from a legal representative. I think the law would say, do you normally request this from your clients? Probably not. Therefore why did you ask for it this time? Because you thought it wasn't the Clients land? Well in which case why did you carryout the works!

 

This is the same case as for working on trees with a TPO/CA, do you just take the clients word that the trees are not protected? If that's the case, you as the tree surgeon can not use that as your defence in court.

 

 

You mightn't be surprised to hear me disagreeing a little with this. The relevant questions might just as easily be ...

Is this a client to whom you have professional responsibility in return for payment for investigating land ownerships? Are you qualiified to do this kind of investigative work?

Do you normally carry out ownership checks on land on which you have been asked to provide a quote for work?

If not, why would you be expected to do so in this case?

 

You don't ask the cli... customer for a waiver (not a 'wilful blindness'), all you need to do is record that in case there is any doubt as to whether it was you or the customer that had responsibility to check, it was the customer's responsibility. You're just a contractor, you are probably not qualified even to speculate about ownership never mind check it. That would be a solicitor's job.

 

I don't see this being the same as TPOs/CAs. Ownership is largely a matter of common law. TPOs etc exist purely from statute, and the Acts are very clear that it is an offence to carry out unauthorised work, or cause or knowingly permit it. This opens the way for prosecution of contractors whose specialism is trees and who would have an implied duty to check or at least to advise the customer to check. It would make a mockery of the Act if it were left open to avoid prosecution by a customer claiming that he thought you were checking and you claiming that you thought he was checking.

 

Ownershp checking has no equivalent Act creating an implied duty.

 

I'm not looking to argue about it, but because people on this forum rely on advice they are given, I thought it appropriate to leave a fuller explanation of this side of the opinion divide here.

 

In conclusion, don't ask for a waiver, just state that you haven't checked.

[treefolk]

You mightn't be surprised to hear me disagreeing a little with this. The relevant questions might just as easily be ...

Is this a client to whom you have professional responsibility in return for payment for investigating land ownerships? Are you qualiified to do this kind of investigative work?

Do you normally carry out ownership checks on land on which you have been asked to provide a quote for work?

If not, why would you be expected to do so in this case?

 

You don't ask the cli... customer for a waiver (not a 'wilful blindness'), all you need to do is record that in case there is any doubt as to whether it was you or the customer that had responsibility to check, it was the customer's responsibility. You're just a contractor, you are probably not qualified even to speculate about ownership never mind check it. That would be a solicitor's job.

 

I don't see this being the same as TPOs/CAs. Ownership is largely a matter of common law. TPOs etc exist purely from statute, and the Acts are very clear that it is an offence to carry out unauthorised work, or cause or knowingly permit it. This opens the way for prosecution of contractors whose specialism is trees and who would have an implied duty to check or at least to advise the customer to check. It would make a mockery of the Act if it were left open to avoid prosecution by a customer claiming that he thought you were checking and you claiming that you thought he was checking.

 

Ownershp checking has no equivalent Act creating an implied duty.

 

I'm not looking to argue about it, but because people on this forum rely on advice they are given, I thought it appropriate to leave a fuller explanation of this side of the opinion divide here.

 

In conclusion, don't ask for a waiver, just state that you haven't checked.

 

Thanks again for a detailed response. I will keep you posted on what happens, if anything. And yes it is a sycamore probably self seeded, about 25' .