Awkward Situation

[Kev Stephenson]

It may escalate, I would send a factual response which is likely to move the blame from you to Sue. You did all that should reasonably be expected of you in obtaining permission and it appears you were conned into doing work while Gary was away. If any compensation is due it would be from Sue and not yourself.

 

If you wish to remain friends with Gary I would send him a copy of the letter to prove you did as you did before carrying out the work although with friends like this who needs enemies!!

[Tommy_B]

I wouldn't rely on this lot for any form of legal advice at 11pm on a Friday!

[mikeh]

There are different scenarios here:

 

1. Gary didn't give permission in which case Sue's been lying to you from start to fulfill her desire to remove the hated trees next door possibly thinking why should Gary mind - after all he's moving out soon. Which would indicate she's

a: Stupid

b: no friend to you or Gary

 

2. Gary knows that 3 trees have been cut down, yet he's trying to screw you & Sue for 7

He screws his 'friends' over - nice chap

 

3. Gary did give Sue permission in which case he's truly Machiavellian

 

That's assuming you did cut only 3 trees down

 

4. Your not a good judge of character - no offence. OK it is a bit offensive but looking at the evidence you present. Nonetheless true.

[Andy Clark]

Ok, the is two legal perspectives to this - one being criminal damage, the other being common law trespass. The fact that you did not act with any malicious intent (mens rea) would point to this being more common law trespass.

 

So in terms of trespass, the question arises as to whether you had consent of the landowner to enter the land and do what you did. You didn't necessarily have consent directly from Gary, but you did have a text from Sue, stating that Gary had given consent.

 

So the first point of fact is about that text. Do you still have it? If so, save it! Download it/back it up to your pc, along with the rest of the conversation to show context, and do not loose it!

 

Your own defence then arise that you were acting as sue's agent, under instruction from her that consent had been granted. You have not assumed, you have been told and it should be reasonable to believe that she was not lying.

 

The second point of fact is the number of trees. Was there 3 or 7? And that is down to Gary to prove. As the claimant it is his burdon to prove the number of trees felled.

 

As for replanting, he can't strictly claim this as a recompense. He can only claim material loss to him that has arisen as a consequence of the trespass. Which can't be re planted trees AND compensation, just compensation.

 

Might be a sticking point though, as he can claim the amenity value of the trees that have been lost. What I mean to say, is that he could retrospectively value the trees using CAVAT/Helliwell, and then claim that sum as compensation - which ironically enough may equate to more than the cost of new trees.

 

Assuming you have that text, I would simply reply to the solicitor advising you had consent and thus don't believe that their is any claim to answer. Need only be a few lines long. Make them deal with the claim properly and prove it.

[Shane]

Do the trees show on Google earth view?

[Nick Connell]

Not really as it's the end of a long row of trees you can't really make them out on google earth.

[Adam M]

What would happen if I just put it in the bin?

 

You'd be imprisoned for not recycling. And quite right too

[Duncansimpson]

Deny all knowledge of doing the job. If he was away how can he prove it was you? Trees? What trees?

[Nick Connell]

Good Idea!

[Treemover]

A firm I work with had the same issue; it went to court.

 

Unless there is something in writing from the owner of the trees to the person cutting or to Sue stating consent/permission; the court is powerless.

 

It was a valuable lesson for me to witness, and thankfully in my case it wasn't my job.

 

I'd never proceed unless I had an email to operate on a third parties property.