Wonder why these fell over?

[eggsarascal]

Common law is clear. Reasonable care. Severing roots on the entirety of one side is not reasonable, regardless of the situation.

 

The trench will be dug, I need to replace the rabbit mesh when the new fench goes in. Me being me will pay for new trees if the ones the neighbour as put in die.......... I shouldn't need to though!

[scraggs]

By the actions of the root cutter, hasn't the owner suffered loss?

 

or

 

By the actions of the tree owner, hasn't the neighbor lost enjoyment of their land by not being able to do what they want ?

[Vespasian]

By the actions of the root cutter, hasn't the owner suffered loss?

 

Yes, loss of rights to be compensated, due in no small part to reckless foresight..

[Mark Bolam]

Wouldn't they winch back up?

They could then be keep upright with some blue telecom cord.

[Gary Prentice]

or

 

By the actions of the tree owner, hasn't the neighbor lost enjoyment of their land by not being able to do what they want ?

 

If they feel that they have, there are a number of legal solutions. Depriving your neighbour of a large cypress by cutting the roots could quite possibly lead to a court judgement to replace with a similar sized tree.

 

 

The last instance I was involved in, where a neighbour thought it would be okay to jump the fence and fell trees restricting his view, totalled over £35,000 to replace and maintain until established.

 

If the neighbour had been reasonable, taken the correct route and acted appropriately, the law would probably judged in his favour.

 

I'm not disagreeing that loss of enjoyment, restrictions in use etc aren't present, but they have been negligent in their actions.

[Gary Prentice]

Yes, loss of rights to be compensated, due in no small part to reckless foresight..

 

Are you just making this up as you go along?

 

The tree owner would be within his rights to seek a like for like replacement of the tree lost due to the negligence of the neighbour. Whether the tree was maintained, too tall, too green, too smelly, or whatever is totally immaterial.

[Gary Prentice]

Wouldn't they winch back up?

They could then be keep upright with some blue telecom cord.

 

Terrific idea Mark:biggrin: You always appear with a perfect answer:thumbup:

[biggarlogs]

Not wishing to get involved in the legal arguments being debated. But after losing at the photos,I observe..The fence is not new,probably getting near the end of its use full life.in the past these trees have been severely side pruned,maybe at the time of fence errection. And the blown trees seem to be lacking greenery on the good side.

I ask who side pruned the hedge and who erected the fence. I take it that the fence is the boundary.yes digging out on the weak side of the tree is not good.but would have expected trees to blow away from the excavation and not towards it

Have these trees been blown for a while as there seems a lot of dead wood on main stems.or how long has the ground been excavated for?

[benedmonds]

The tree owner would be within his rights to seek a like for like replacement of the tree lost due to the negligence of the neighbour. Whether the tree was maintained, too tall, too green, too smelly, or whatever is totally immaterial.

 

I am surprised there has been so much discussion on here. I thought all would agree that the neighbour was at fault and could be held liable..

[Mick Dempsey]

Well that's the beauty of forums Ben.