Conservation area tree works

[bolthole]

First post "I have checked on council website and I'm unable to find detail, and as yet unable to get hold of tree officer. "

 

Whoops! My bad.

 

In my defence, it was rather late where I am.

[john k]

That would be a pacta illicita and would therefore be void, protecting no-one.

OK that makes sense. I can see the distinction there.

 

I get it out in the open. Very low chance of oversight and, in my opinion (which is what matters to me in each case), no chance of me being prosecuted for the landowner's failings or attempted sneakiness.

I agree that the way you operate makes it less likely that any problems will arise, but supposing someone does end up with a sneaky customer who doesn't do what they are meant to and contracts for you to carry out unauthorised work?

 

How about this scenario: a customer who wants a tree removed in a CA, but doesn't want to involve the LPA for any of a number of nefarious reasons. He reckons that the chances of a prosecution are low enough to be worth the risk of felling the tree without notification, but signs your contract saying he'll do the paperwork and assume responsibility.

 

You're clearly confident that you're covered, but has this ever been tested in court? Is there not a danger that as the professional expert in the situation there is a higher duty on you to make sure that the work you carry out is within the law?

[Gary Prentice]

OK that makes sense. I can see the distinction there.

 

 

I agree that the way you operate makes it less likely that any problems will arise, but supposing someone does end up with a sneaky customer who doesn't do what they are meant to and contracts for you to carry out unauthorised work?

 

How about this scenario: a customer who wants a tree removed in a CA, but doesn't want to involve the LPA for any of a number of nefarious reasons. He reckons that the chances of a prosecution are low enough to be worth the risk of felling the tree without notification, but signs your contract saying he'll do the paperwork and assume responsibility.

 

You're clearly confident that you're covered, but has this ever been tested in court? Is there not a danger that as the professional expert in the situation there is a higher duty on you to make sure that the work you carry out is within the law?

 

We work on the DTA adage, 'Don't Trust Anyone'

 

Commercial works the hardest, obviously, because the information/consent/plans are never on site, but our quotes and work spec's are written in an attempt to safeguard us.

 

The little old ladies are often the most nefarious in my experience:biggrin:

[daltontrees]

OK that makes sense. I can see the distinction there.

 

 

I agree that the way you operate makes it less likely that any problems will arise, but supposing someone does end up with a sneaky customer who doesn't do what they are meant to and contracts for you to carry out unauthorised work?

 

How about this scenario: a customer who wants a tree removed in a CA, but doesn't want to involve the LPA for any of a number of nefarious reasons. He reckons that the chances of a prosecution are low enough to be worth the risk of felling the tree without notification, but signs your contract saying he'll do the paperwork and assume responsibility.

 

You're clearly confident that you're covered, but has this ever been tested in court? Is there not a danger that as the professional expert in the situation there is a higher duty on you to make sure that the work you carry out is within the law?

 

If I knew the owner was deliberately goiung to break the law and not notify, I wouild probably be covered but I would probably decline to do the work. The reason would be my professional reputation, I don't want it sullied by association.

 

As for the woder principle, I don't think the law has been directly tested, but there have been prosecutions in various TPO breach cases where the contractor was found partly or wholly guilty, presumably without any contracting out being in place. So I can't definitively answer the question exxept to say that if Mynors thinks R v Bournemouth is 'in point' then the principle of 'causing or permitting' has been tested as a point of law and found to be sound in a non-tree case. Good enough for me, but by now you may realise I amn't relying on that I am relying on bona fide contracting out.

[derbyshiretreeservices]

the previous permition only lasts for two years from the last consent from the council, if you cant see the letter from the council, walk away, its cheaper to loose the job than it is for the fine, just because they say (the tree owner) go ahead its ok, we give you the permission Iam afraid you are still liable for any criminal prossicution that might take place, because YOUR the pro and YOU should have known better. no excuse iam affraid walk away untill you see the consent form from the council.yes we all want the pennies but you could end up in hot water.

[skyhuck]

the previous permition only lasts for two years from the last consent from the council, if you cant see the letter from the council, walk away, its cheaper to loose the job than it is for the fine, just because they say (the tree owner) go ahead its ok, we give you the permission Iam afraid you are still liable for any criminal prossicution that might take place, because YOUR the pro and YOU should have known better. no excuse iam affraid walk away untill you see the consent form from the council.yes we all want the pennies but you could end up in hot water.

 

Few weeks back I felled a Red Oak within the conservation area, I had no "letter of consent" from the council, will I be prosecuted????

[daltontrees]

the previous permition only lasts for two years from the last consent from the council, if you cant see the letter from the council, walk away, its cheaper to loose the job than it is for the fine, just because they say (the tree owner) go ahead its ok, we give you the permission Iam afraid you are still liable for any criminal prossicution that might take place, because YOUR the pro and YOU should have known better. no excuse iam affraid walk away untill you see the consent form from the council.yes we all want the pennies but you could end up in hot water.

 

You don't need consent in a Conservation Area, you tell the Council what you plan to do and it has 6 weeks to make a TPO to stop you. 95% of the time there is no Council letter to see, the Council is usually so busy it simply does nothing in response to a notification and when the 6 weeks are up, the owner is immune from prosecution. So, of course, is the contractor.

 

And for the reasons explained at great length above, I disagree with you. I am a pro, I know what I am doing and I will get jobs where people who don't know how to contract out of CA obligations will needlessly walk away. It's not an excuse, it's a valid, lawful, business decision. Keep walking away, guys and gals...

 

95%, mmm...

[skyhuck]

You don't need consent in a Conservation Area, you tell the Council what you plan to do and it has 6 weeks to make a TPO to stop you. 95% of the time there is no Council letter to see, the Council is usually so busy it simply does nothing in response to a notification and when the 6 weeks are up, the owner is immune from prosecution. So, of course, is the contractor.

 

And for the reasons explained at great length above, I disagree with you. I am a pro, I know what I am doing and I will get jobs where people who don't know how to contract out of CA obligations will needlessly walk away. It's not an excuse, it's a valid, lawful, business decision. Keep walking away, guys and gals...

 

95%, mmm...