Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

felixthelogchopper

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    9,730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by felixthelogchopper

  1. That's why you would be better going down the Criminal Damage route. That has nothing to do with the deposit. Of course, it would only be polite to point out to the tenant that it would be a good move on their part to settle up before it got that far.
  2. Should be ok, mate. It won't have to cope with a lot of pressure.
  3. I heard you embroider yours.
  4. felixthelogchopper

    049

    From the album: Me

  5. Glad you didn't lose anything, mate. Pain in the aris having to undo all that though.
  6. They may feel many things but that has no legal standing. They have a rental agreement and no more. It may be their home but it is not their property. They have no more right to destroy a tree than they would to start doing structural alterations to the fabric of the house. BTW, malicious damage as a term is from the Malicious Damage Act 1861 which was superceded by the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
  7. One more exposed than the other, like a frost pocket for example?
  8. German Para Boots.
  9. Have you contacted the Police? Might be a nice chance for them to catch somebody red-handed.
  10. Very funny, now say sorry to Miss Widdecombe and give it back.
  11. Glad to hear nothing went. Sounds like a dog that deserves a steak today.
  12. The Royal Navy ones are better if you can get them.
  13. By s1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971: A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. The definitions of property belonging to another, proprietary interest and damage etc are all provided for by the Act and all define this as Criminal Damage.
  14. Very interesting, Daniel.
  15. I find it hard to believe that you are even asking that question. In the case of the tree removal, there is both mens rea, intent to commit the act, and actus reus, the criminal act itself, which are necessary to show to 'make' a criminal offence. In the case of the tree affecting the foundations, the damage is being caused by the tree which is the property and responsibility of the home owner. In any case, if the tenant had responsibility for the tree, such an act as you describe would be an act of omission, not a criminal act. You are trying to compare two totally different situations. If you want the full details of what constitutes the exact detail, I can recommend pp988-991, Criminal Law (Smith and Hogan, OUP 12th edition).
  16. Removal of a mature tree like that is plainly criminal damage.
  17. The Young Ones and Friday/Saturday Night Live.
  18. Will o' the wisp, with Evil Edna and Mavis Cruet.
  19. Get well soon, mate. Get a good hot curry from Omar's.
  20. Best tip I can give you in your position is don't turn your back on your old job completely. This business can sometimes be a bit patchy and the odd 'special guest appearance' in your old trade can help make ends meet.

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.