A Conundrum.

[Stephen Blair]

The motorhome is his new baby, I take it this guy is in his late 50's, early 60's?

[Gary Prentice]

You say the tree is on a boundary. Does that mean:

a. In the main the tree except for overhanging growth is wholly within the bounds of your client's land?

b. Any part of the tree's base, (excluding roots) also grows from Mr. Grumpy's land.

 

The latter would suggest co-ownership and thus shared responsibility & liability. The former, I suggest your client buy the camper van but leaves it parked on Mr Grumpy's land. Awkward I know but Mr. Grumpy doesn't have the lawful right to even touch/move a vehicle parked on his land, without consent of the vehicle's owner.

 

The answer to your question is A)

[Gary Prentice]

I was always under the impression that even though the tree is in your garden your not responsible for overhang. Eg if a neighbour wants the overhang reduced to the boundary you as the owner don't need to do the works. Please correct me if this is wrong or is this correct?

 

You're correct, in the absence of statutory protection. You don't however have any right to access the tree or (probably) lean a ladder against it.

 

Given that the scenario would be one of a tort, surely the keys will be your client's owed duty of care and have they taken reasonable steps to undertake that duty of care? In my opinion they have most definitely done so, as evidenced by the schedule of inspections and work carried out. I can't see that it would hurt to have evidence that reduction/removal have been refused due to the TPO. Out of interest, does the tree pre-date the arrival of the neighbour and is there an alternative parking space on the property?

 

The tree predates the neighbours occupation of the property and strictly speaking there isn't other parking. His is the second of a stone terrace of two houses at right angles to the road. The drive is in front, between the houses and my clients land. There's room to park away from the canopy of the tree, but it would be to the front of his neighbour.

[Tom D]

Skyhuck is right, I have been involved in a few insurance cases where trees have damaged neighbouring property, one where the tree wrote off one car and damaged two others, in most cases the tree owner was not liable and the car / home owners had to claim on their own policies. There was one case where the tree belonged to the council and i think they did pay out, but I'm not certain.

[Gary Prentice]

Gary, here's an idea. Put in a TPO application to remove all the overhanging branches. State (as you must in a TPO app) the reason and that you foresee dmage to the camper van. Give the reason as preventing damage to neighbour's vehicle. Inevitably, after Council stops laughing and reads between the lines, you will get a refusal. Any sunbsequent damage that was foreseeable the Council compensates for. Any that isn't is a perfect defence against negligence. Any miniscule claim will be thrown out of court as de minimus if nothing else. And the costs of court will be borne by the neighbour.

 

Mr Camper van can then direct his irrational rage at the Council and the courts. In effect the TPO is convenient to your client in this case because it takes the decision to butcher the tree out of his hands.

 

This is probably the only way forward, if the insurance position that Skyhuck mentioned isn't correct. I'm loathe to as it would appear unprofessional but I can always discuss the rationale of it beforehand.

 

I'll admit to having made applications to fell before to pass the onus to the LA with wearisome clients neighbours.

 

Thanks Jules

 

My nieghbour has 2 nice Landrovers and an expensive looking Rib, him and his wife are really nice people and their garden boundaries mine.

2 of my trees are close to the boundary and overhang his parking area more than mine.

He never asked or mentioned the trees but it was something I was aware of when I bought the property as did I notice my other nieghbours trees close to my conservatory on the other side, I mentioned to him my concern and offered to remove them at no cost if that was ok but in no way were they extremely dangerous, just taller than the distance from the base to my house.

Long story short I cut down my 2 to remove the risk and liability and I cut down my nieghbours 3 to save him the same stress.

Everyone happy, they are only trees.

 

A perfectly reasonable attitude, the decision made without any pressure or influence from a third party. Would you be in the same frame of mind if he'd been banging on your front door, demanding that you did something?

 

I'm curious and not being argumentative, because I suspect an element of stubbornness occurs in most people when they begin to feel bullied or have others attempt to impose their will on them.

Any seagulls in the area Gary?

 

A daily fistful of mackerel guts (from the tree owner) and the van roof would look like a welders bench after a week! Kind of make the odd twig an inconsequence!!

 

 

Kevin, under the veneer of politeness and civility there is a streak of evil and vindictiveness escaping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like it:biggrin:

[Gary Prentice]

Skyhuck is right, I have been involved in a few insurance cases where trees have damaged neighbouring property, one where the tree wrote off one car and damaged two others, in most cases the tree owner was not liable and the car / home owners had to claim on their own policies. There was one case where the tree belonged to the council and i think they did pay out, but I'm not certain.

 

Thanks Tom.

 

I started the thread yesterday morning, read Skyhucks reply but didn't get the opportunity to confirm it as I was out all day. Then fell asleep in front of the fire for the rest of the night.

 

 

 

This has been a great thread with plenty of interesting posts/comments/solutions, so thank you everyone who has contributed.

[Gary Prentice]

The motorhome is his new baby, I take it this guy is in his late 50's, early 60's?

 

Probably a little older. The vans a far from new VW camper which I believe is his daily runaround. If you're ever down Saddleworth way, you'll recognize it by the gnome on the roof and the flock of seagulls chasing behind it.

[Gollum]

TPO Protects tree and its roots.

Van parking on roots compacting ground.

ground compaction damages roots.

No parking ?

[Gary Prentice]

TPO Protects tree and its roots.

Van parking on roots compacting ground.

ground compaction damages roots.

No parking ?

 

A LA legal department didn't prosecute when the TO caught another company (twice) on site, saw in hand, felling in contravention!

 

Oh for an ideal world.

[daltontrees]

TPO Protects tree and its roots.

Van parking on roots compacting ground.

ground compaction damages roots.

No parking ?

 

Doubt if this is 'wilful damage', as the Act says. But it's always a factor that TPO'd trees are protected in their entirety even roots under neighbour's land and gradual damage could be bad for a tree. But gradual compaction or pre-compaction would reslult in less roots in the parking area anyway.