A hypothetical question.

[daltontrees]

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

 

Jon, that's my understanding too, the LA does not warrant the safety of roadside trees, But I think care is needed. If the Council notice says, 'if you don't make it safe within 14 days, we will' then the owner is off the hook and quire trgiuhtly because he has been given the option to do it or be billed when the Council does it and by what might be termed in law as acquiescence and taciturnity the onner is entitled to assume the matter is in the hands of the LA. It could certainly form the basis for a fairly robust negligence claim.

 

If the notice says '...we can and may', that's a different matter.

[Logrod]

Jon, that's my understanding too, the LA does not warrant the safety of roadside trees, But I think care is needed. If the Council notice says, 'if you don't make it safe within 14 days, we will' then the owner is off the hook and quire trgiuhtly because he has been given the option to do it or be billed when the Council does it and by what might be termed in law as acquiescence and taciturnity the onner is entitled to assume the matter is in the hands of the LA. It could certainly form the basis for a fairly robust negligence claim.

 

If the notice says '...we can and may', that's a different matter.

 

Exactly my thoughts (but phrased much more clearly!)

Edited September 4, 2015 by Logrod

[stihlmadasever]

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?

Im not entirely sure how that would go but from personal experience working for my local council authority-some years back a house owner was asked to remove a limb off a tree in there garden which had grown over a public path,when some months past and no action had been taken,the council removed the offending limb and billed the home owner for the work carried out.Perhaps the highway authority would do the same after clearing it with the relevant authorities.

[Gary Prentice]

Im not entirely sure how that would go but from personal experience working for my local council authority-some years back a house owner was asked to remove a limb off a tree in there garden which had grown over a public path,when some months past and no action had been taken,the council removed the offending limb and billed the home owner for the work carried out.Perhaps the highway authority would do the same after clearing it with the relevant authorities.

 

The highways authority have a right to order that trees are safe and not a danger to highway users. How they exercise that right is a different matter. The question I asked is where, after exercise of the duty, liability finally resides.

 

I'm sorry the original post was not as self-explanatory as it could have been, to keep it brief I assumed a certain level of pre-knowledge from everyone to lead to the question I was asking.

 

It has been educational to see how different LAs use their powers and the concern that some exhibit as to creating certain legal positions or liabilities on themselves.

 

It would be useful to be able to tell a client exactly what there legal position is if a) they ignore a notice and b) they can't pay for work that the Highways Authority has done. As so often is the case, there may not be a definitive answer that can be given.

 

 

In the few cases that I've seen, the instruction is vague from the HA 'fell or remove the danger' - so what are you specifically telling the owner to do? and totally ignored the fact, for one particular tree, that the planning department demanded six weeks notice in the form of a 211 notice.

 

It's little wonder that sometimes the work isn't done, because the owner struggles to understand exactly what they are required to do and attempting to actually talk to someone in the HA feels like you're in a Monty Python sketch.

[Gary Prentice]

Jon, that's my understanding too, the LA does not warrant the safety of roadside trees, But I think care is needed. If the Council notice says, 'if you don't make it safe within 14 days, we will' then the owner is off the hook and quire trgiuhtly because he has been given the option to do it or be billed when the Council does it and by what might be termed in law as acquiescence and taciturnity the onner is entitled to assume the matter is in the hands of the LA. It could certainly form the basis for a fairly robust negligence claim.

 

If the notice says '...we can and may', that's a different matter.

 

Jules I'd have to agree, it's pretty much my thoughts. It may also explain some of the vaguarities of the wording that I've had the pleasure of reading.