Do I need to do a survey?

[T.C]

I have a very good client (estate) that have given me over the years quite a lot of work. I survey trees as well as do the practical stuff. I was wondering whether they have shown enough 'duty of care' to their trees by getting me in to do work on any suspect stuff but not having that paperwork work of a survey. I don't want them to commission a survey if they don't need one. Basically in the eyes of the courts if the worst should happen have they done enough without the report!

 

Cheers as always

[David Humphries]

This won't answer your specific question directly but its worth having a look at the examples for tree/land owners in the National Tree Safety Groups 'Common sense risk management of trees'

 

Chapter 3 talks about what the law says and Chapter 5 looks at how the guidance can be applied in terms of different levels of tree/land ownership with regard to responsibilities/duty of care.

 

 

full document....

 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCMS024.pdf/$FILE/FCMS024.pdf

 

abridged version.....

 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/safetreemanagement

 

 

.

[daltontrees]

It would seem that the courts are greatly assured when a landowner has a 'system' in place. If it is not documented, it is not damning, but it certainly makes the proof of 'care' easier. If as you say you have dealt with all the suspect stuff, firstly the likelihood of someone getting harmed is reduced and secondly the landowner clearly does toake a responsible approach.

 

What isn't clear is whether it is you or it is the landowner that spots the 'suspect stuff', and whether this is spotted during a systematic inspection or is just noticed in passing. The relevance is that the courts have differentiated between the degree of care required of a landowner in looking for suspect trees and the that required of someone called in by the owner to follow up its suspicions. If you are in any way involved in avising what work needs done rather than just being a contractor, you may have a wider 'duty to warn' if you spot anything that you are suspicious of. So be careful.

 

For similar reasons you need to be careful about putting or finding yourself in the position of advising the landowner how to dioscharge his duty of care. That you have asked the question here indicates you parhaps don't have a full enough understanding of the extent of the duty of care to be taking on the advisory role. But to your credit you quote rightly don't want to put the client to the expense of what might be an unnecessary survey.

 

David Humhries has commended the NTSG publications to you, which is a very good starting point and possibly all that you an the landowner should need to make sure the 'system' is adequate. But probably best if the last word on that decision comes from the landowner. It sounds like you're both close to it already, just neding to clarify the roles.

[T.C]

Many thanks David, judging by this they're doing enough!

[armybloke]

This is not a tool for generating work but a consideration for you. If your landowners tree damaged property or injured a person/animal then can they show an auditable trail whereby reasonable steps have been made to ensure that the risk has been reduced/removed. That may include you walking the estate and merely signing a form to say you have made an inspection.

 

Occupiers’ Liabilities Act 1957 and 1984

An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the “common duty of care”, to all his visitors whether by invite or otherwise. The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the ‘visitor’ will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there or for purposes other than that which they have been invited (trespassers).

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Perhaps, at least to some extent, regular quotes / invoices from yourself demonstrates a 'pro-active' system of tree management.

 

Obviously, "belt-n-braces," you need to consider yourself in all of this in terms of qualifications, experience / competence AND insurance.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[T.C]

Thankyou very guys for all your valuable input. I've passed the document David attached to the land owner.

[MATTMOSS]

It would seem that the courts are greatly assured when a landowner has a 'system' in place. If it is not documented, it is not damning, but it certainly makes the proof of 'care' easier. If as you say you have dealt with all the suspect stuff, firstly the likelihood of someone getting harmed is reduced and secondly the landowner clearly does toake a responsible approach.

 

What isn't clear is whether it is you or it is the landowner that spots the 'suspect stuff', and whether this is spotted during a systematic inspection or is just noticed in passing. The relevance is that the courts have differentiated between the degree of care required of a landowner in looking for suspect trees and the that required of someone called in by the owner to follow up its suspicions. If you are in any way involved in avising what work needs done rather than just being a contractor, you may have a wider 'duty to warn' if you spot anything that you are suspicious of. So be careful.

 

For similar reasons you need to be careful about putting or finding yourself in the position of advising the landowner how to dioscharge his duty of care. That you have asked the question here indicates you parhaps don't have a full enough understanding of the extent of the duty of care to be taking on the advisory role. But to your credit you quote rightly don't want to put the client to the expense of what might be an unnecessary survey.

 

David Humhries has commended the NTSG publications to you, which is a very good starting point and possibly all that you an the landowner should need to make sure the 'system' is adequate. But probably best if the last word on that decision comes from the landowner. It sounds like you're both close to it already, just neding to clarify the roles.

 

 

 

Good answer