A hypothetical question.

[Gary Prentice]

If a householder is served a notice by the highways authority to remove a tree, within a period of time (14-28 days), and fails to do so, where does the liability end?

 

As the standard threat:biggrin: is 'do it or we will', if the owner doesn't and the authority hasn't, who could be pursued in the event of damage or injury?

 

This thought came to mind after passing a dead tree I quoted to remove six weeks ago under these circumstances. My thoughts are that ultimately the owner has been negligent, but the highways authority have stated they will do the work and then haven't after the period has expired - are they also negligent in their duty?

 

Your thoughts gentlemen?

[Logrod]

You'd have to check that the standard threat was used (and not just a "do it!") , but from a reasonable management point of view if the householder had 4 weeks to do it (or not) and the HA was then required to check if it had or hadn't been done (as no communication from householder), then schedule work, I would have thought that it would be unreasonable to transfer liability to the HA until the end of another 4 weeks. After that point though I would expect the HA to be responsible but I suspect it may never have been tested.

[Gary Prentice]

As I said it's hypothetical, so we will assume a reasonable amount of time has elapsed and all the paperwork is as it should be. 'Do it' was for brevity.

 

It seems unreasonable that the responsibility would fall to the HA, in a sense that the owner could be absolved from their duty of care by in-action. A double edged sword for the HA.

 

I would be surprised if this has never happened though.

[Logrod]

They would be absolved of their duty of care but presumably at the cost of being billed by the HA for the work?

[Logrod]

For it to be tested the tree would have to fail within the window between end of homeowner "notice period" and the HA doing the work and there would have to be an accident/loss as a consequence of that failure. I suspect in the majority of cases the failure occurs when there is no traffic and is cleared up without problems.

[Gary Prentice]

True, or a land charge, if that's the correct term, if they couldn't pay.

 

I might phone the local Highways department tomorrow claiming my car's been damaged, just to see what they say:biggrin:

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

True, or a land charge, if that's the correct term, if they couldn't pay.

 

I might phone the local Highways department tomorrow claiming my cars been damaged, just to see what they say

 

Good luck with that Gary! The tree would probably have time to fail while you're still on hold!

[Gary Prentice]

Good luck with that Gary! The tree would probably have time to fail while you're still on hold!

 

I didn't know you'd spoken to our highways department before/tried to talk to....

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I didn't know you'd spoken to our highways department before/tried to talk to....

 

 

Can't imagine it'd be much different to ours!

[Jon Heuch]

I would be surprised if this has never happened though.

 

It has happened before and gone to court - Sevenoaks. A surveyed tree fell and killed someone. The HA has the right but not the duty, if I remember correctly. The responsibility lies with the tree owner (but I'm not sure in that case what happened to the tree owner - the issue focused on whether the HA was responsible, and they were not).

 

Jon