any Tpo legal eagles about

[gibbon]

 

Gibbon.... Forest research recs say the same, don't prune unless there is a need for safety, The TO says he'll fell it, what do you do, Prune to remove weight from lats and to reduce wind sail effect ?

 

If there isn't sever bark death, just spots then nothing. If the tree is odviously dying back heavily from the tips then its reducing its own wind resistance quite effectivly. It it is this bad however it probably needs felling.

 

I've seen quite a bit of limb failure in HC effected by BC. I have heard that this is due to timber fracturing as it dries. How effective pruning is at reducing this I am not sure as its not the end weight or wind resistance causing the limb failure if it really is caused by drying of the wood

[Andy Collins]

I don't see how the contractor has accepted responsibility? Surely he has done what he has been instructed by the client - unless he has written a supporting report as well?

 

Imo a client would have very little arb knowledge (generally), and would be guided by the arb contractor, therefore the contractor should be responsible for his advice. This is obviously more complex than can covered in a few lines here though.

[Topcat]

Andy..very complex....here's another..would the council have to get a court order to remove the tree or can they dis all the advice the client has sought...how many reports are needed, one side gets a report the other counter acts at the moment it's 3-1 in the clients favor...Saying that the way Gordon is spending money I will have to get an MP on board and add it to expenses.

[Meep]

What you have to remember is that Tree Officers are not covered by professional indemnity insurance, so normally if a contractor recommends that a tree should be felled and the Tree Officer disagrees then the Tree Officer is making the council liable for any costs resulting from the owner of tree having a protected tree, this comes under Article 9.

 

(Article 9 describes how a person who has suffered loss or damage due to the LPAs decision (to modify, revoke, refuse works, place conditions on works, etc) of the TPO can claim compensation from the LPA).

 

In this case if the Tree Officer believe that the tree is not worthy of its existing TPO, then professionally he or she should just remove the TPO, this then allows the tree owner to do what they want.

 

However if he or she believes that the tree in question is that dangerous, then the Tree Officer can fell the tree and send her the bill, but the Tree Officer would have to enforce both the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

 

But he or she would have to give notice of his/her intentions before accessing the land and felling the tree.

 

The underlining problem with this is now there is written documentation stating that the Tree Officer believe that the tree should be felled, and you are stating that the tree will be safe after a reduction, now the problem is what happens when / if the tree failures!

 

Will your professional indemnity insurance cover you? Or will your insurer believe that you are exposing your policy and will not cover the potential claim against you?

[combined tree services]

if the TO has stated that the tree is in his/her oppinion DDD then surely he/she must have father more evidence than his/her oppinion that the tree is in fact the dangerous , has he/she listed the targets ? carried out a qutra assessment ?? it sems highly strange that the TO has changed his stance and now decided that the tree must be felled .

 

also for the TO to be able to fell the tree he/she needs to state a rather more informed report to the court as to why he has re inspected the tre after it has been reduced and exactly what the eason for this was and the exact findings and methods used , speculative thoughts will not get him anywhere but as the contractor i would be mindfull that if this tree does fail at any point further to your report stating that the tree is safe and poses a low risk even tho the TO has stated it needt to come down then the buk will probably stop with you !! but good luck with it

[Bundle 2]

From what you are saying Topcat, and frankly, it is not all that clear from the posts so far tbh; the T.O. appears to know neither tree physiology nor the legislation. What a nightmare! Perhaps he/she is a student on work placement...i wonder where they find these genii sometimes!

 

 

"What you have to remember is that Tree Officers are not covered by professional indemnity insurance" Absolutely wrong mate...why would you think they wouldnt need insurance like everyone else?

Edited August 12, 2009 by Bundle 2

[Amelanchier]

In this case if the Tree Officer believe that the tree is not worthy of its existing TPO, then professionally he or she should just remove the TPO, this then allows the tree owner to do what they want.

 

 

But it also removes the oppourtunity to enforce a replacement...

[Amelanchier]

However if he or she believes that the tree in question is that dangerous, then the Tree Officer can fell the tree and send her the bill, but the Tree Officer would have to enforce both the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

 

But he or she would have to give notice of his/her intentions before accessing the land and felling the tree.

 

IIRC notice under Misc Prov would supersede any notice under the ANLA 1992. There just simply wouldn't be a need to duplicate the notice of intention to enter the land.

 

Ultimately, as you say - notice would have to be given of intent. This is quite different from a letter telling an occupant to fell a tree!

[Bundle 2]

"Ultimately, as you say - notice would have to be given of intent. This is quite different from a letter telling an occupant to fell a tree!"

 

The point is surely that said notice affords the owner/client the opportunity to seek counsel on a course of action that would oppose the notice ( in part or in full)

I give up....this is clearly way past this in this case already.

[Khriss]

Or..............bung yr 'mate from over the water ' a few quid-get them to crash some scrap car into it , torch it, get picus survey done on it ( the tree not the car ) then tree owner claim's uninsured loss ( from insurance federation ) and criminal injury compensation ( whilst he claims political asylum-plus sectioned under the mental health as a danger to society and him/herself) fr damaged tree / requirement to remove said now-dangerous tree .......Then everyones happy...........

 

K

 

( Obviously this would not be my professional advice -yr Honour)