Andy Clark

Anyone having any issues with that good ole' summer branch drop? In the last 2 days I've had two big mature Pop's shed fair sized limbs, and a reasonable sized Prunus kanzan decide that it would rather have a lay down across the footpath than stand upright any longer. (Although to be fair that was mostly as a result of rot at the root collar, than SBD) Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ok, I'msat pawing through Perrin, refreshing my memory of the case....... I think the first startling obvious point that's been missed, is that your client does not fulfil the role of Perrin/Ramage. Your client is of course fulfilling the role of Shephard! ie, the tree owner (2nd defendant), and not the claimant seeking to rectify the nuisance. Granted, your client may well have some driveway damage him/herself, but the Perrin case would not apply to your client. So really that just takes me back to one of my earlier posts, in so far that I think the process by which this matter is being pursued is a bit backwards. The claim of actionable nusiance should be being pursued by the neighbour, not by your client - and equally with the TPO application. The fact that the Council have refused consent, I would think should have now exonerated your client from any comeback from the neighbour, and I would say that the best course of action would be to advise your client to now walk away, and leave the neighbour to fight it out with the LA........ as was of course the case in Perrin. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Stumbled across this on the South Northants Council website.... If you or your neighbour owns trees with a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), this is important news. The position has just recently changed about pruning protected trees where they overhang from neighbouring land. SNC has in the past permitted adjoining landowners to prune back branches and roots of trees where they were encroaching onto their land provided that the works did not prejudice the health and safety of the tree or make it unsightly. This was allowed because there is an exemption on TPOs that allowed works “as far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance”. But, there has always been uncertainty as to what is meant by ‘nuisance’ because the TPO legislation does not define it. Until recently the prevailing legal opinion has been that ‘nuisance’ is Common Law. This can simply mean encroachment of branches and roots onto adjoining property. As a result, the Council would rarely require that permission be sought for the removal of overhanging branches, provided that the works were carried out in a professional manner. This situation has changed. A recent legal case in the High Court (Perrin vs Northampton Borough Council) has given clearer direction on how the ‘nuisance exemption’ should be applied. It has been clarified that ‘nuisance’ should be interpreted as being ‘actionable’ in law. This means that any tree cutting works proposed would have to have the effect of preventing or abating actual or imminent damage. For example, roots undermining foundations or overhanging branches damaging a roof. The overall effect of this is that if parts of your neighbour’s TPO tree is overhanging into your garden and you want to undertake some pruning works, you may only do so without permission should you be satisfied that you are doing only the minimum work necessary to prevent or abate an actionable nuisance. If you want to rely on that exemption, it is strongly advised that you obtain a legal opinion in writing before you do the work in case of the Council investigating alleged unauthorised works, which can result in prosecution with fines up to £20,000 per tree and a criminal record. Works simply to cut back branches and roots because they overhang your property will require an application to South Northamptonshire Council and consent would normally only be granted if the proposed works were for the benefit of the tree.

Any-hoo, regardless, I did say that the questions where rhetorical, and that the point was one of providing evidence of exploring other "reasonable" alternatives - thus PROVING that removal of the roots was the only remaining solution - hence the "necessary" solution in order to abate the nuisance. . . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

In reference to my comments about the Tree Radar stuff you mean? And the costs being compensatory? Let's not forget we have three parties here, and the resulting chain of liability. Surely ALL reasonable costs would be payable by the tree owner (via insurance) as compensation? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Dude, I've been trying all week to get some free time at a pc to sit down and write a worthy response to your post, but it ain't been so easy so apologies for the half RSed reply from my phone....... Firstly, don't worry, no malice/bad feeling/ill will or anything of the sort taken. I learned not to take the Arb world personally a long time ago, and at the end of the day, if you can't have a good old debate on these here hallowed pages, well then what's the point eh? The thing for me in all of this, and this is coming from the background as a time served climber, is that I'm well aware how easy it is to hammer a TO and think they're nothing more than idioitic bureaucrats who became a TO because they were rubbish at climbing, and couldn't actually tell one end of a good quality reduction from a slap round the chops Lol. (Be honest, we all know we've all thought it at some point or another!). But at the end of the day, we are all here "hopefully" for the same reasons....... To do the best that we can regarding the tree in question, dictated by our own specific differing standpoint in the equation. Fair comment? From your perspective, for example, you wanna do the best by your client, and walk away leaving a happy customer. From the TO's perspective though, this is just another in a big long list of applications, most of which will involve pruning a tree in order to abate a nuisance of some sort or another..... Tree blocking satellite reception, tree blocking out sunlight, leaves clogging up my gutters, tree causing subsidence, roots lifting my driveway. The problem is though, for you primarily, is that the tree is getting more and more highly regarded, and less and less seen as the easy target. The pressures on the TO these days to protect the urban tree stock is increasing, but yet equally by contrast, our human nature demands and expectation for an improved quality of life are getting greater. So what do we do? Well, for a starters we now have such things as The Joint Mitigation Protocol, primarily in relation to subsidence. That itself set a fairly clear precedence in terms of how we manage trees vs the cost implications of any damage they cause. Calculate the monetary amenity value of the tree using CAVAT, compare that to the cost of repair, and if the cost outweighs the value, then fell the tree. If not, and the tree is of a higher value, then retain the tree and pay for the repair. Simples. And that mentality really is getting more and more accepted (and pushed) across the board...... Granted, we don't know too many details about the tree itself in this instance as the majority of the focus has been on the driveway, but for arguments sake, let's just say that it could stand there quite happily for another 50-100 years if left unmolested. THAT's what the TO has to consider..... And on that basis alone, a couple of grand for repairing a driveway is pretty negligible. He/she sure as hell ain't gonna let it be felled without AT LEAST exploring an engineering solution to the problem, that's for sure. And that's just the TCPAct stuff...... Get into the depths of Occ liability, and Nuisance and Negligence etc, and yes, the acts may be different, but the outcome is still the same and the Judge will still expect someone to have been reasonable and acted reasonably. I mean take something else for example..... The specific act of abating a nuisance - let's not forget that one can ONLY conduct such works as is necessary to abate said nuisance. One cannot have a free reign to do MORE than is necessary. So on that basis alone, the question arises that do ALL the roots NEED to be cut in order to repair the drive? Or can just one or two surface roots be removed, thus negating the risk of de-stabilisation? Has that even been explored? Has anyone looked at the new fangled Tree Radar and tried to map the root system to find? Granted it's a cost, but it's a cost that can be recouped as compensation. Ok, Cellweb may on face value take the driveway above the damp course, but has anyone dug trial holes and actually assessed that as being fact? Has anyone even rung the Cellweb folk and got them to come out and take a look? Has anyone looked at the possibility of re-routing the driveway further away from the tree? Or making it narrower? Or re-laying the driveway in gravel/pea single, or block paving and retaining the roots as a feature? Ok, these are all rhetorical questions in the context of this thread and I'm not expecting an answer to any of them, but the point I'm trying to make is that these are all questions that can/will be asked. These ARE the things that a TO will likely expect to see, before they start rolling over on the consent. They're also things that a Judge is likely to expect evidence of, should the matter ever go before the Courts if you client goes ahead without consent and then gets his collar felt by the LPA for possible breech of the TPO. So when I say "loop hole exploitation" I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, you may very well find a way to wangle an exemption by spending hours scouring through case law and legislation, but 1) don't forget the question of "context" when reading them and head off on a wild goose chase, and 2) don't put all your eggs in one basket and forget to cover the paper trail of evidence. Make more sense? . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I hate to say it folks, but I still think this all smats of loophole exploitation and will all end in tears if not careful. I mean P v Northants is being used pretty far out of context to be fair....... Granted my memory of the nitty gritty is pretty cloudy these days, (I was OCA's contracts manager when Dealga and Maggie McQueen were acting on behalf of Perrin at the time of the Appeal) but I was involved in the matter towards the end of the Appeal, and had the delightful pleasure of writing the method statement and overseeing the works for the root pruning...... For one, the root pruning works were minor and posed only a negligible loss of any rooting structure - unlike this instance. On top of that, the works were to be undertaken at such a distance from the tree, that there was minimal (if indeed ANY) question of impact on the trees health, let alone any questions over it's stability! - again, unlike this instance. And lastly, we are of course talking about significant subsidence damage, extremely costly to repair, and the consequent effects on the value/fabric of the Perrin property (from memory a beautiful and quaint old detached cottage) - again, no where near comparable to the damage being suffered in this instance. (All of those things to my mind really is why the case went full whack, as there was just no reasonably justifiable way that the LA could/should've refused consent in the first place.... considering the almost zero long term impact on the tree, I don't thing the LA ever had a leg to stand on). PLUS, the best bit....... notwithstanding ANY of the Court proceedings, the LA STILL categorically stipulated that all root pruning works were to be in accordance with NJUG! (being the only best practice doc. in relation to pruning roots). And made damn sure that NJUG was followed to the very last letter! Hessian sacking, hand tools, sterilised tools, the whole 9 yds! Ok, on paper, the black and white bare bones of the instance of root severance of a TPO'd Oak tree is the same, but I've gotta say that that really is about as close as it gets by way of similarity. KNOWING that the works WILL pose the tree at a significant risk of collapse, ok, the LA themselves may not have the locus to dictate how your client should abate or suffer the nuisance, but the principles of Law itself do already clearly make that dictation! And we can sit here till kingdom come, and try and nit pick the proceedings and Judgements, but the overarching principles will always stay the same...... One is expected to act "reasonably". Tread carefully. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Not sure if anyone's already posted this (apologies if so), but something to be aware of in this increasing wet and rainy country of ours...... Council prosecuted after worker's near-death fall

I suppose i should read them really. Unfortunately I never got past the typo in the first page, and kinda lost interest after that.

Not sure about the "imunity from prosecution" bit. I think the point is that all parties should be looking to follow the process, rather than looking for the loop holes to get the tree felled. At the end of the day, that is what the TO is going to be looking for. Granted the matter of the TPO and Actionable nuisance etc, but lets not forget that Actionable Nuisanace in Tort is subjective - hence why it boils down to case law. Has there ever been a legal precidence set in relation to roots lifting a driveway? If there is, then granted, Actionable Nuisance = TPO excemption to rectify. But if there isn't, then the neighbour still risks having no defence, as the damage was never concretely proved as being actionable. Plus, it boils down to that fantastic word "Reasonableness". The actions of a reasonable man. Is it Reasonable for the roots to be severed in the first instance, knowing that the tree is TPO'd, and knowing that it will need to be felled by the tree owner as a result? I don't think so personally, but granted that others may feel different. I do think it's reasonable though to at least try and find an alternative (with a big trail of evidence to back it up), and then look to the tree roots when you can prove that you feel you've done all that you reasonably can. But would that all over-rule the neighbours own duty under OL? I still think that the neighbours liability for rectifying a danger on his premises would outweigh his claim for peacfull enjoyment under Nuisance against the tree owner. Also, all the while this drags on and they dance round the TPO issue, the trip hazard is still there, known to the neighbour, hence could in fact be claimed to be Negligent by not taking reasonable action to rectify the hazard. Reasonable action could of course in the first instance just be adding a bit more tarmac to soften the breaks in the drive, to make them not so prominent and therefore less likely to cause a trip. 5 quid for a bag of ready lay patch repair tarmac, could at least buy everyone 6-12 months while they all figure out a more longer term fix. Granted we don't all know the extent of the damage, but you hopefully get the point.

I've struggled with this thread a bit, and I think the point of "actionable nuisance" and the TPO has clouded things a bit..... The neighbour (not the tree owner) has a duty under the various Occupiers Liability Acts to ensure that there is no hazards to anyone entering the premises. If the drive is a trip hazard, the fact that the tree is causing it or that the tree is TPO'd is irrelevant and wouldn't be a plausable defense against that liability of not rectifying the trip hazard. They must still take the reasonable action to safeguard the premises - even if that means working around the tree, as a consequence of the TPO. If the postman tripped over and broke his ankle, he would still sue the neighbour, and the neighbour would be liable. The postman wouldn't of course sue the tree owner. The Actionable Nuisance against the tree owner only really comes into it for the neighbour to then counter claim against the tree owner for the cost of abating the trip hazard and carrying out the works required as a consequence of the tree owners tree being causal to the damage If those works cost £10,000, because the tree is TPO'd and an engineering solution must be found, then so be it. The tree owner could in theory then counter claim these costs from the Council under a section 203 claim, as compensation as the result of the TPO. I say "in theory" because there has been no mention (that I've seen) of an Article 5 Certificate ever being served or of when the TPO was made. (Don't push the Tree Officer at this point, because he/she might still be able to serve one). My best advice would be to advise both parties to talk to their insurers, and then let the insurers argue it out. It's nice that the neighbours appear to be being amicable, but I think that's just clouding the processes and will inevitably end in tears and dispute as the matter drags on to no definable conclusion. . . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Don't get me wrong Rupert, I'm not implying that Climbers etc can't make good recommendations. The matter here is that the neighbour is pushing the liability button. Hence the only way to safeguard against that liability in a defensible way - ie, a way that will stand up in court, is to get a consultant to carry out the report. Recommendations from someone other than a consultant may be equally as effective, but if it ever went to court a decent barrister could rip it to pieces, purely on the fact of the previous precedence of the relevant level of qualifications. It's just a question of box ticking, that's all. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

What more evidence does one need Tony? The original post was clear, in the respect that we're talking about a group of 20-30 80ft tall Lombardys located on the property boundary, and that there are liability issues by way of the concerns of the neighbour over falling branches. The original post also indicates that there is already an intention to fell 4 of the trees - 2 of which to abate damage. On this basis alone, if you actually quote me in context of the accompanying explanation that followed, you'll see that I conclude by stating that the point is to treat the works as one project - ie, don't get the felling works done, and then start looking at other works as a separate issue. Treating it as one project, would of course allow the party conducting the report to make a full and factual assessment based on ALL required works, as opposed to turning up on site after part of the works (the felling) have been conducted - and thus having to play guess works as to the sites original condition. Bold? Not really. Just better read in context. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Just to add a few points that have been missed....... The Local Authority do have the powers under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act to get involved and enforce you to get any problems solved, but ONLY if the trees are posing a risk to public safety. And they can only enforce that you take the relevant action to rectify the problem, they can't enforce that you do more work than is required. ie, they can't make you fell them, if the problem is just a few bits of sizeable dead wood, or hung up/snapped branches etc, only enforce that you get the dead wood/hangers removed. You seem to be being very proactive, so I really shouldn't worry about them being involved if your neighbour continues to try and hold it over you. . The second thing relates to the quoted portion above....... DON'T get a "tree surgeon" (contractor) to do the report, use a consultant instead. A civil case several years ago (Poll vs Bartholomew) found that a "forester", in this instance, was not deemed of an adequate enough experience and/or qualification level to conduct an accurate enough level of inspection and therefore to give the appropriate level of advice - thus the case as a consequence set a precedence that only suitably qualified individuals should be inspecting trees and giving advice/making comments/recommendations in relation to tree health/stability etc. Details of how to find and employ a suitably qualified party, can be found from one of the industry's professional bodies - such as the Consulting Arborist Society, the Arboricultural Association, the Institute of Chartered Foresters, or the International Society of Arboriculture, UK and Ireland Chapter. http://www.trees.org.uk/ http://www.tree-expert-finder.co.uk/ http://www.isaarboriculture.co.uk/ http://www.charteredforesters.org/ Lastly, under NO circumstances just get the felling work done without at least getting some reduction or thinning works done on the remainder. Trees grow to suit their surroundings. In this instance, they are growing and have historically been used to growing in a row, with each tree being sheltered, in at least some part, by it's neighbour. If you suddenly put a big hole in the environment in which they have been used to growing, by felling several of the trees in one go, you will undoubtedly change the dynamics of the wind patern and air flow around the remaining trees, and expose them, or at least some parts of them, to forces that they have never been exposed to previously - thus have never grown in order to accommodate those forces. Inevitably you are likely to end up with a domino effect, whereby suddenly exposed parts start failing, which in turn expose more parts, which in turn fail, which in turn expose more parts, which in turn fail...... and so on and so on..... until the inevitable conclusion comes that all need to be felled because their stability can no longer be guaranteed and clearing up broken branches and snapped stems outweighs the benefit. . In short, treat the works as one project. Get all works done at the same time, not in different parts. Again, a decent consultant worth his/her salt will take this all into account when doing you a report. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Another one to try is TROBI..... http://www.treeregister.org/index.php Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

. Did I just read that right? The tree is failing, so you think that pollarding it will keep it alive? Far be it for me to teach grandma how to suck eggs, but just to add my ten-penneth here..... Trees manufacture sugars in their leaves which they then use to form the materials that they use to grow. If you cut off all the leaves (which you will do obviously by pollarding it), you in turn remove it's ability to make those sugars and thus stop it from producing the tissues which it will need to repair itself. Chances are, pollarding and already sick tree will just finish it off., so you might wanna re-think your works recommendation on this one and look a bit more at WHY it's failing. . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Couldn't see this anywhere else, so apologies if I've duplicated it........ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337533/Huge-tree-flattens-cars-narrowly-missing-playground-exclusive-London-square.html Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I think that might be the route. I've been on BAILII, but can't find anything on there. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

There's quite a few other reports available via google. This one's quite good - http://www.cheshire-today.co.uk/16354/chester-man-fined-28000-for-damaging-a-tree/ Be interesting to read the Court transcript of the case when it becomes available. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Smells like a plea bargain to me. Let's not forget that the issue wouldn't stop at felling the tree..... The article states that the tree was TPO'd yes, but that the area was covered as a conservation area, and thus would've needed planning permission for the entire job - including the removal of the wall, removal of any other grass/greenery and transferring to hard standing for the car park. TPO contravention alone can be up to iro 20ish grand, plus whatever fines for the removal of the wall and other breach of planning regs etc, so I would guess that they settled on an overarching conviction with a lesser payout, rather than individual convictions for each breach of the planning regs with a much larger cumulative payout. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

This is a tricky one...... The TO will look at several factors - most of which will involve the arising issues several years to come down the line. For example if they start pruning it back away from the property, chances are that with the amount of re-growth that will occur as a result, you'll need them back in 2-3 years time to do it again; and probably every 2-3 years thereafter until the end of time. They're certainly not going to like committing to that level of regular pruning. You mention heave - a few comments have aired that this can be waffle. Sorry folks, but it is the real deal and an issue that does need to be taken into account. . If the tree predates the house, then that of course means that the house was built on already partly desicated/contracted soil. Take away the tree, and the chances are (depending on other vegetation in the nearby locale), that the soil will expand to it's original condition - which will of course be beyond the volume of what it was at the time the house was built. Thus we have heave. If the tree/house are of a similar age, then yes, clay soil or not, heave won't be an issue - as the soil will only ever re-expand to the volume that it was at the time the house was built. Talk to the local TO as has been said, and get his standpoint first. In the meantime, do a bit of legwork on google and try and find out your soil type, and also old photos of the area to establish the tree cover prior to building the house. Also try and get the DBH of the tree and use something like the forestry commissions FC IN12 to age the tree and compare to the age of the house. Personally I think the TO will try and plump to strongly remind you of your common law right to prune it back to the boundary yourself, and will shy away from touching it with a bargepole...... but I may be wrong. . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Likewise. Sounds like the TO is being somewhat pedantic in order to stall for time. . In terms of percentage, pollarding is pretty obviously going to remove 100% of the crown. A no-brainer really. And if they've been done before, and you're planning to RE-pollard to previous points, then I would think height/size again is going to be fairly obvious to any TO who gets of his behind to go and take a look. . A few points though that I've picked out from your post (might just be the way it's worded), but you don't make an "application" for trees in a CA, you "notify" the LPA of the works you intend to carry out - giving them 6 weeks notice to put a TPO on the tree if they deem the tree valuable and in need of protection. It may be that your "application" wasn't worded in a black and white manner and open to interpretation, so I would just write back to the TO stating your intentions more clearly - ie, "it is intended that the trees are re-pollarded to their previous points", or "it is intended that the trees are pollarded to leave a final height of "XYZ"metres from ground level" I would also include in your letter the date that you intend to carry out the work, and make sure that it's 6 weeks and 1 day on the dot from the date they received the notification. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Worker's tree fall lands farmer in court Date: 4 April 2013 Release No: SE/76/13 An east Hampshire farm owner has been prosecuted after an untrained worker plunged over four metres from a tree as he was using a chainsaw to prune branches. The worker, who doesn’t wish to be named, climbed up into a large sycamore tree and used a rope supplied by farm owner Hamish Janson to tie the chainsaw to a branch. He straddled one of the tree limbs and was cutting down branches when he lost his balance and fell. The worker dropped onto a barn below before rolling off the roof and ending up on some of the felled branches on the ground. The 41-year-old man from Ringwood, Hampshire, dropped onto a barn below before rolling off the roof and ending up on some of the felled branches on the ground. He managed to escape with minor injuries to his back and neck. The incident, at Newton Valence Farm in Newton, Alton, on 3 June 2011, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted Mr Janson at Aldershot Magistrates’ Court today (4 April). HSE’s investigation found Hamish Janson wanted the tree pruned as branches had started to damage the roof of the barn. He told two of his workers to cut the tree back but neither was trained to use chainsaws within a tree or given the correct equipment to carry out the work. The court heard the incident was entirely preventable. After the incident Hamish Janson employed professional tree surgeons and the job was completed safely in less than an hour at a cost of just over £100. Hamish Janson, 72, of Newton Valence Farm, Selborne Road, Alton, admitted a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to make sure that the tree work was planned, supervised and safely carried out. He was fined £1,075 and ordered to pay £3,350 in costs. After the hearing, HSE Inspector Craig Varian said: "The activity taking place on site at the time of this incident was a complete and utter shambles. There were so many issues with the way the job was being done that it is hard to know where to start. "The injured man and all involved were untrained in this type of work and the resulting activity demonstrated a complete lack of planning and forethought. To be straddled in a tree with no harness, training, cutting away at branches with a large chainsaw defies belief. "It’s very lucky that this worker didn’t suffer much more severe injuries either from the chainsaw or the fall. Chainsaws are very dangerous and should be used only by trained and competent individuals. Falls from height kill many and injure very many more. "This is unfortunately another example of poor health and safety practice in the agricultural industry. HSE will take robust action against those who put workers’ lives at risk." The latest HSE statistics show that 40 workers were killed and more than 3,400 were seriously injured in falls from height in 2011/12. Further information on safe working at height can be found online at HSE - Falls from height in the workplace. In the same year, there were 33 deaths in the agriculture sector. Notes to editors Photo shows the tree and barn below. The chainsaw is just about visible hanging from a branch at the top and middle of the picture. The Health and Safety Executive is Britain's national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice; promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice; and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. HSE: Information about health and safety at work Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 states "Every employer shall ensure that work at height is properly planned; appropriately supervised; and carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe." HSE news releases are available at HSE: Media Centre Press enquiries Regional reporters should call the appropriate Regional News Network press office. Issued on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive by the Regional News Network

Chances are that you may have already had this, as it seems to be doing the usual rounds via e-mail, but if not.......... Dear FairFuelUK Supporter A huge "thank you" to the 13,000 who have so far completed the*FairFuelUK Pre-Budget POLL in the last 18 Hours.* It would be fabulous if you could get your friends, family and colleagues to also take part in this survey on the impact of petrol and diesel prices in our personal and business lives? Please pass this email onto them with the POLL links shown below. The results from this survey will be presented to the Treasury and published in the National Media. The more who complete this POLL the more weight it will carry with the decision makers in Westminster. For those supporters who have not done so yet, please do add your thoughts by using this POLL as to what you believe is the right level of Fuel Duty Cut that would make you spend more or invest in your business. There are two Polls (Public and Business) that will help you convey your opinion. Here are the links: PUBLIC Poll: http://*http://www.fairfueluk.com/public_poll.html BUSINESS / ORGANISATION Poll http:// http://www.fairfueluk.com/business_poll.html * Thank you as ever for your help in the fight for lower petrol and diesel prices Very kind regards The FairFuelUK Team -* http://www.fairfueluk.com* The Campaign is backed by The RAC, FTA, RHA, Aldermore Bank, Association of Pallet Networks and the Fuelcard Company* Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Either things have gone drastically down hill in the past 6 years Mr S, or you're telling fibs! Lol. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk