Trees and Trespass...

[Jesse]

Runs Treelife AC.

 

An old 'name' in the industry (meant with respect) who worked behind the scenes on a lot of the Brit Standards, the guidance on bats and the arborist, things like that. Also known as 'God' when submitting assignments for moderation:biggrin:

 

A really interesting fellow to be taught by, whose own interests in arboriculture just enthuses everyone the class. Lots of 'in' jokes appear on here from ex or not-yet-ex students because the learning experience he creates. It's difficult to explain, but he's a great teacher that encourages and inspires.

 

I'll second that. He always had a nice watch and shoes .

[Chris at eden]

I'll second that. He always had a nice watch and shoes .

 

I'll third it. Also wrote the L2, L4 and L6 certs and diplomas which is worth a mention. Never noticed the watch and shoes thing but I'll take your word for it. Top trainer as his his mate Andy.

[Gary Prentice]

:biggrin:When I see him at the AA conference next month I know I'm going to end up peering at his watch and shoes, cheers Jesse

[Jesse]

:biggrin:When I see him at the AA conference next month I know I'm going to end up peering at his watch and shoes, cheers Jesse

 

The words Bling and Rolex come to mind, fair play to him,

[agrimog]

is this common law, or the more praticed commercial (admiralty ) law used in the english courts since 1666, cos they are completly different, legal and lawfull are NOT the same.....be very carefull with your definitions

[daltontrees]

It doesn't mattrer how many times thios issue comes up on Arbtalk, there are always new interpretations of the law and the question never gets answered. The origonal poist wasn't even a question, just an unattributed 'quote'.

 

Meantime Dowsons Law seems fine insofar as deciding if the land owner who receives involuntarily fruit or prunings is a theif or not. But it says nothing about whether a tree owner, who might enter his airspace to prune an overhanging branch can chuck it down onto the poor man's lawn then go around and collect it, is in the wrong. Or whether he should cut it in small enough pieces that he can drag it back through the tree onto his own land.

 

You can talk about common law and Mynors and adrmiralty law and whatever Lemmon precedents you want to, but in the end a court if asked to will look at what is reasonable. Or more immediately if someone chucked their prunings onto my garden instead of recovering them through the tree, and then wandered around nochalantly to collect them from my garden, I know who the bobbies would side with in the ensuing ugly altercation.

 

Lazy! Inconsiderate. Rude! Unnecessary. Intrusive. Getting close to what the law would call 'unreasonable'?

[Jesse]

It doesn't mattrer how many times thios issue comes up on Arbtalk, there are always new interpretations of the law and the question never gets answered. The origonal poist wasn't even a question, just an unattributed 'quote'.

 

Meantime Dowsons Law seems fine insofar as deciding if the land owner who receives involuntarily fruit or prunings is a theif or not. But it says nothing about whether a tree owner, who might enter his airspace to prune an overhanging branch can chuck it down onto the poor man's lawn then go around and collect it, is in the wrong. Or whether he should cut it in small enough pieces that he can drag it back through the tree onto his own land.

 

You can talk about common law and Mynors and adrmiralty law and whatever Lemmon precedents you want to, but in the end a court if asked to will look at what is reasonable. Or more immediately if someone chucked their prunings onto my garden instead of recovering them through the tree, and then wandered around nochalantly to collect them from my garden, I know who the bobbies would side with in the ensuing ugly altercation.

 

Lazy! Inconsiderate. Rude! Unnecessary. Intrusive. Getting close to what the law would call 'unreasonable'?

 

Besides the point you're hinting at, are we at fault for trying to educate ourselves, those members, who have invested in arboricultural education, privately, and one step further than most members on here, no digs intended. are only doing so to improve themselves . Whats wrong with that, now let me ask another question, this one directed at local authorities, who are funded for everything, get paid to go to work, get paid holidays, pensions, you name it. I looked at a stump today, the tree had failed and fallen on a car, lots of damage, road side tree LA owned tree, in the center of Taunton. Luckily no one injured. The party involved came outside to ask why i was looking at the stump, i said it was to grind, i also said should be fairly easy as it was 2 3rds decayed with Ganoderma adspersum wide spread at the base. My point being.... the LA had denied any fault with the tree, and refused any compensation stating that the tree was healthy and had records of inspections, :lol: two road side trees further along are standing half dead, and on the other side of the road is another tree succumb with Armillaria, my point being we are paying the LA to maintain these trees, and at the same time we are all being rimmed by our own LAs . Never take any advice or statements from a local authority as being true.

 

Just trying to put my point across about how education can help. This will be ongoing, photos taken by the third party once i explained why the failure occurred.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Jesse

[Gary Prentice]

 

Meantime Dowsons Law seems fine insofar as deciding if the land owner who receives involuntarily fruit or prunings is a theif or not. But it says nothing about whether a tree owner, who might enter his airspace to prune an overhanging branch can chuck it down onto the poor man's lawn then go around and collect it, is in the wrong. Or whether he should cut it in small enough pieces that he can drag it back through the tree onto his own land.

 

 

Morning Jules, I remember the discussion well (in the classroom), although it involved yew hedges, access and the Majors nieces horse:biggrin: None of which will make sense to anyone who hasn't been to tree life.

 

Reasonable access to the neighbouring property cannot be denied to maintain a hedge/tree/fence etc. Well, it can be refused but if it goes that far a judge will order it.

 

But my understanding is that the reasonable bit is the crux, you can't come and go at will, nor trample his prize petunias while doing so.

 

Returning to your example, my interpretation is as yours. You would need the prior agreement of the neighbouring property owner before using that property to do the work. You would also be responsible for any damage, i.e. dents in his lawn.

 

Theoretically, the use of a mewp might negate the need to access the neighbours to prune a two inch branch if the initial request of access is refused. A judge would have to decide after considering the expense, difficulty, etc as to what is 'reasonable'.

 

Oddly enough, I spent half an hour yesterday evening arranging and agreeing exactly this. A client has a few trees situated in the eighteen inch space between a building and a boundary fence. Removal is possible , at the expense of more time, effort and risk of damage, without entering the neighbours but the jobs more simple approached from their side.

[daltontrees]

Besides the point you're hinting at, are we at fault for trying to educate ourselves, those members, who have invested in arboricultural education, privately, and one step further than most members on here, no digs intended. are only doing so to improve themselves . Whats wrong with that, now let me ask another question, this one directed at local authorities, who are funded for everything, get paid to go to work, get paid holidays, pensions, you name it. I looked at a stump today, the tree had failed and fallen on a car, lots of damage, road side tree LA owned tree, in the center of Taunton. Luckily no one injured. The party involved came outside to ask why i was looking at the stump, i said it was to grind, i also said should be fairly easy as it was 2 3rds decayed with Ganoderma adspersum wide spread at the base. My point being.... the LA had denied any fault with the tree, and refused any compensation stating that the tree was healthy and had records of inspections, :lol: two road side trees further along are standing half dead, and on the other side of the road is another tree succumb with Armillaria, my point being we are paying the LA to maintain these trees, and at the same time we are all being rimmed by our own LAs . Never take any advice or statements from a local authority as being true.

 

Just trying to put my point across about how education can help. This will be ongoing, photos taken by the third party once i explained why the failure occurred.

 

I'm all for education, every day is a school day here on Arbtalk. I can't say that my postings are any more right than other folks', most of the time, but there is a lot of rubbish talked and things cited as facts by people on Arbtalk but they are factually incorrect or don't reflect the true state of the law. Some of them are backed up by stubborn attitides, and at that point objectivity of perspective disappears and it just becomes vindictive. I think that all you can say about what's on Arbtalk is generally well-intended and based in some understanding of the law but it isn't entirely reliable and for sure isn't a substitute for structured learning through an authoritative source. Personally I can't easily stand by and see erroneous information passed off as correct.

 

I think where the great strength of arbtalk lies is in gving a collective overview of the pragmatic approach that can be taken day-to-day in tree work. That doesn't mean it's 'right', but commercially we all have to cut corners or make compromises and more generally have to get on with things without stopping to take legal advice every time a twig might fall into a neighbour's garden. I expect the reason why there are not court precedents covering trivial encroachments and trespasses is that the courts do not concern themselves with them (de minimus non curat juris) and quite right too. Ordinary behaviour will always rely on ordinary ethics and attitudes towards other people, and the law only gets involved when the consequences of unreasonable behaviour are significant.

 

So reliance on what is presented as acceptable on Arbtalk could lead someone into a situation where they are legally and technically in the wrong but the consequences have got to a scale that results in them being on the wrong end of a court decision. Not too late to un-learn the wrong version of the law, but it won't be a defence to say that someone on Arbtalk said it was OK however nice his watch and shoes were.

 

I have no comment on your LA saga, I do work for LA's and I see both sides of the story. It probably merits a separate posting.

[daltontrees]

Morning Jules, I remember the discussion well (in the classroom), although it involved yew hedges, access and the Majors nieces horse:biggrin: None of which will make sense to anyone who hasn't been to tree life.

 

Reasonable access to the neighbouring property cannot be denied to maintain a hedge/tree/fence etc. Well, it can be refused but if it goes that far a judge will order it.

 

But my understanding is that the reasonable bit is the crux, you can't come and go at will, nor trample his prize petunias while doing so.

 

Returning to your example, my interpretation is as yours. You would need the prior agreement of the neighbouring property owner before using that property to do the work. You would also be responsible for any damage, i.e. dents in his lawn.

 

Theoretically, the use of a mewp might negate the need to access the neighbours to prune a two inch branch if the initial request of access is refused. A judge would have to decide after considering the expense, difficulty, etc as to what is 'reasonable'.

 

Oddly enough, I spent half an hour yesterday evening arranging and agreeing exactly this. A client has a few trees situated in the eighteen inch space between a building and a boundary fence. Removal is possible , at the expense of more time, effort and risk of damage, without entering the neighbours but the jobs more simple approached from their side.

 

Hurrah, we agree!

 

I have had horrible situations between neighbours where one has refused access with teh stated intention of making the job more difficult and more expensive for the other. The police got involved and an ASBO was issued.

 

Finally, my daughter is right now insisting that I put a pink icon in this message so here it is