A Conundrum.

[Gary Prentice]

I suspect I know the answer to this question, although my answer seems unreasonable, unfair and outside the spirit of the law.

 

I have a client with a fine mature ash situated on a boundary.

The neighbour parks a camper van under the canopy of the tree.

The tree is subject to a TPO.

The neighbour is a tree hater:001_rolleyes:

 

We've dead-wooded this tree almost on an annual basis, down to sub-pencil size diameter, but the van owner is still on our clients case about 'debris' falling on his vehicle.

 

My presumption is, in the event of damage, the client has taken reasonable precautions so wouldn't be negligent - but would suffer higher insurance premiums/excess payments subsequent to a claim. I know this is going to happen, the neighbour keeps a stepladder by the vehicle and inspects the roof daily for a scratch or most minuscule dent from a seed case. An incident waiting to happen.

 

It seems wrong that despite every effort to be reasonable - he'd remove the tree if it wasn't protected, he is still likely to suffer the liability.

 

I suppose it would make an interesting test case, assuming that the costs of repairing the roof of the camper fall within the compensation threshold resulting from a refusal and 'foreseeable' consequences of the refusal, but that's not an avenue I want to pursue.

 

I reasonable neighbour would park elsewhere, build a little car port or seek an alternative solution (I know he doesn't legally have to), but it just seems to me that he's just biding his time to say "I told you so". It seems wrong.

 

Thoughts learned friends:biggrin:

[skyhuck]

If he is not negligent the neighbour can not claim against his insurance.

 

The damage would be "act of god" and the camper owner would need to claim his own insurance.

[skc101fc]

Hide the stepladder !!

[Goaty]

Sounds like the neighbour is a pile of hemorrhoids with nowt better to do. Obviously lots of time to waste. Do these sort of people actually get any joy out of their pathetic lives.

 

Sorry non constructive post, but I feel sorry for the client.

[Gary Prentice]

Sounds like the neighbour is a pile of hemorrhoids with nowt better to do. Obviously lots of time to waste. Do these sort of people actually get any joy out of their pathetic lives.

 

Sorry non constructive post, but I feel sorry for the client.

 

I share your sentiments

[Gary Prentice]

If he is not negligent the neighbour can not claim against his insurance.

 

The damage would be "act of god" and the camper owner would need to claim his own insurance.

 

Would he?

 

I don't have much experience with insurance claims so don't know.

[Bird]

I'd be more inclined to do something funny ....go out in the middle of the night and carefully place not to damage his roof of his van and leave something on it that couldn't of come from the tree! A gnome for example !! Obviously a jobs worth

[Gary Prentice]

Hide the stepladder !!

 

Thinking outside the box! I like that.

[Stubby]

Would he?

 

I don't have much experience with insurance claims so don't know.

 

Camper Van Man is an opportunist knob . As has been said he could park somewhere else . Tree owner should park his car under tree so that camper van man has to park elsewhere .

[skyhuck]

Would he?

 

I don't have much experience with insurance claims so don't know.

 

Thats my understanding.

 

Even if your tree fails and lands on someones house, so long as the tree has no obvious defect and you have acted "reasonable" in inspecting and maintaining the tree, you are not liable and the home owner must claim on their own insurance.

 

Your insurance would pay for the removal of the tree from their house.