daltontrees

All I would add is that tere are instances in H&S Regs where an operative has to be competent and there are instances where the operative has to have demonstrated competence. LANTRA training courses are for getting competent, NPTC tickets are for demopnstrating competence. I think using a chainsaw is an example of the latter and using a chipper is an example of the former. You might be very experienced and totally competent, but if the law says you have to have demonstrated it by getting ticket and you haven't, you're a bit stuffed. But nly, I would guess, if the claim relates to that competence. so for example if someone falls into a chipper you're insurance might not be invalidated just because you don't have the chainsaw ticket.

Skyhuck, apart form a bit of gentle sparring here on Arbtalk, all good-natured exchanges of professional opinion, I don't know you from Adam and frequently disagree with you ,but even though I have never walloped a cod in my life I have to find myself agreeing with you on much of this. Mr AHPP, I think you are suffering from some sort of society-fatigue that we all feel about many things in the industry and in daily life a lot of the time. But it doesn't make it right in any sense that you should want to portray yourself as equal to insured parties who have tickets. There seem to be a couple of overlapping issues here. For someone to be covered (and I don't mean their own a*ses, I mean those of the public and clients) you need to be good, you need to be insured AND you need to be able to demonstrate competence. All of these need to have been addressed. You can have 1 or 2 out of 3 but if it all goes horribly wrong you can't complain if your insurer leaves you standing when you injure a punter or an employee. If you have tickets and are nisured but you are a poor climber, commercially you will fail. If you are insured and are proficient commercially but cannot demonstrate competence in accordance with the H&S legislation, it is clear to me why your insurer won't cover you for accidents. Try this. Get car insurance by claiming falsely that you have 20 years no-claims discount and a trailer license. Then get into a crash and see if your insurer doesn't do a bit of investigtion then drop you like a stone. Yes it's rubbish that tickets are more valuable on the face of it than grandfather-rights. But that's the way the world is. Success is not by tickets, it's tickets plus ability. If you are competent, get the tickets. If you are assessed and pass, good and your insurance will be valid and you're covered by your insurance. If you are assessed and fail, well ... Me, I've paid for my tickets and I pass on a fraction of that cost to each and every customer. I'm not fond of competing with people who don't have to do the same. I think what we all need to remember about insurance is that if there's an accident the public is covered and then if it turns out the insurance is invalid because of false declarations or omissions by the insured, the insurer will turn on the 'insured' and rip the shirt off their back. Getting insurance without tickets may well be possible, but it's just gambling because you won't really be covered at all.

To accompany my conclusion-jumping I will now do a bit of over-generalising. If it's that high up and has gills, it's not killing just feeding.

Some conclusion jumping by me here. It's got gills, it's on dead or dying wood, it's October, the tree's a Beech, it's gone a bit droppy so it's probably Pleurotus Ostreatus.

Hey, Paul, an exceedingly rare example on Arbtalk of someone apart from PITA-me recognising that the scottish situation is different. Unlike England, the rule is not in Regulations, it's in the primary legislation. It is very simple. Nothing can prevent anyone - "uprooting, felling or lopping of trees if ... it is urgently necessary in the interests of safety...". There is no 5 day notice procedure, but I'm sure a fancy lawyer would construe from the Act that you really ought to tell the Council "in writing of the proposed operations ... as soon as practicable after the operations become necessary".

You can only do urgently want needs to be done. A dangerous branch doesn't mean fellignthe whole tree. The tree may now be safe because the only weak part (the branch) has already fallen off. Do as little as you have to, and record the evidence of why you had to do it. Then, as Skyhuck says, notify COuncil of intention to do anything more extensive. The dead, dangerous etc. exemption does not exist any more, it has been replaced with a risk assessment basis. Guidance is available online.

Also not helpful by me, I know, but all those insureres went bust ...

Sorry this won't help you but personally I wouldn't want to be insured by anybody that would insure me without tickets. I've just been through my policy and althoygh it runs to dozens of pages the only thing I can find is it says - "The Assured shall take all reasonable precautions or steps: a) to observe and comply with all statutory or local authority laws obligations and requirements;" And I think that means the H&S Act and all the Reguations that come off it (PPE, PUWER, COSHH, LOLER, WAH atc.) Then it says "To the extent that any failure by the Assured to take such reasonable precautions or steps gives rise to, or contributes to a loss then any claim that is the subject of that loss will not be covered under this Policy." That insurer didn't ask to see my tickets, but basically if I screw up on something I should have demonstrated competence for they'll leave me high and dry. The advantage of a blind-eye policy is that you can wave it around when tendering for work, it might get you somewhere but generally if it's a big contract the employer will either want to see tickets too or will want a method statement that details the tickets of everyone on the job.

You just have to bite the bullet on this. VAT was once a tax on luxury goods, but it's not that clear now. It is a tax on what the VAT Act says its a tax on, and that is all that matters to HMRC.

I emailed the seller through ebay, see below the exchange. I wonder if she'll put that in the questions answered section? Dear xxxxxx, Get a life.....doesn't say it's husqsy - jennifershaw1981 Reply in your email program or through My Messages Respond Now From: xxxxxxx To: jennifershaw1981 Subject: Other: xxxxxx sent a message about chainsaw #271627155768 Sent Date: 07-Oct-14 06:00:44 BST Dear jennifershaw1981, That is the poorest fake 395s I have ever seen.

By the way, I think the ivy on the Beech stem can just be seen top right on the second picture.

"I look at that picture of the fractured concrete and think 'a tree did not do that'." That was my reaction too before I read armybloke's splendid appraisal. I would add that the crack is in the middle of a section of concrete that is possibly too big not to have an expansion/movement joint in it. Right about where the crack is would have been a really good place to put one. There is no way (in my opinion and without the full benefit of inspection) that this crack can be attributed, (without further very destructive investigation, so destructive that a new driveway would be needed to reinstate the investigations) beyond reasonable doubt (or even on the balance of probabilities) solely or entirely to the tree.

And a useful mutual learning experience. Coincidentally I am looking at a case just now where 2 disputing neighbours are arguing about the age of a line of trees. I may be able to use my own method to estimate the age of the trees by measuring their diameter.

If you drive a rickshaw you do!

The boring answer is this. You pay VAT on everything that is not exempted by the VAT Act 1994. It lists everything including (Group 16 Item 2 of Schedule 8) "The supply to a person for use otherwise than by employees of his of protective boots and helmets for industrial use". The word 'safety' is not used.

I reckon it's a douglas fir utility pole. If you stick line on it and cut away the log udnderneath it, you could float it to a more suitable landing position. Or pt a winch redirect pulley quite high up in one of the trees behind and winch it out, the pulley height will lift it upwards and it will slide out no bother.

I just meant last time you got lots of useful advce from lots of people but didn't even acknowledge it.

I remember it. At the time you did not follow up your initial posting. Personally I would need a little encouragement to spend more time on this.

It looks like G. applanatum to me. If it is, it's not going to be very aggressive but it is what it says about the condition of the butt that is sounding hollow. Personally I would eb thinking (risk assessment-wise) Likelihood of failure medium to high, severity of harm to persons high, severity of harm to wires etc low to medium, target presence of persons low, target presence of wires etc high (permanent), overall risk tolerable but high end of tolerable. Then I'd be thinking are there any reasons to retain it that outweight the risk? It looks rubbish and has not future, so no. Then I'd think, what is the appropriate course of action that would reduce the risk to acceptable? Probably reducing its wind resistance by pruning it right back. Then i'd think, well if it didn't look rubbish before then it's going to look awful after pruning, and the pruning is going to knock the tree for six, meaning potentially removing it in 5 years time. Then i'd be thinking what if it could be taken right back to a pole so that it cna be left to die and provide habitat? Then I'd offer the client the options, prune and monitor, remove completely or habitat pole. But first I'd tap it with a mallet. Can you let us know what comes of it, especially if you are told to remove it, I'd love to see a section through the butt.

The pictures are clear enough to suggest Ganoderma sp and associated stem weakening. But you havent' shown size or shape of tree, presence of roads and footpaths nearby, buildings likely to be hit and so forth. It's not a fungus ID issue it's a risk asessment and duty of care issue.

According to the foreword "The challenge now is for everyone charged with the design and delivery of sustainable and inclusive public spaces to think how the “humble” tree can make a difference in the schemes they are developing." If the past is the key to the present, and if we have all seen good and bad examples of trees that are making a difference, what does anyone else think of the guidance and why a self-appointed group felt it had to present such a thorough opinion on the subject? It's a sickeningly slow download, by the by. Put the kettle on.

With respect to Mr H's opinion in caution, no element of doubt in my mind that these brackets are not Fomes. I am curious about whether the side-profile of a perennial bracket is symptomatic of its decay (sub) strategy, but that's one for another day or another thread. On the (side) face of it, though, your brackets just don't seem to tick the Fomes box.

I feel a bit seasick after watching that. Coud have done with an early floyd soundtrack.

Agreed. They are too heavy but crucially they are not designed to pull the body immediately into a sitting position. Tell you what, though, for aid climbing a tree work harness would be the biz. Good for hanging belays too. Could use a tree work harness for top-roping at a climbing wall, since there are no dynamic forces i.e. if you let go at the climbing wall and as long as your belayer isn't distracted eyeing up the talent on the adjacent route, you shouldn't fall at all.

I have been staring at a blank response screen for 10 minutes, realising how complex this issue is and contemplating what I could add to simplify that complexity. Unfortunately I fear it can't readily be simplified, since it's such a broad hypothetical question. We can all see ways of defining the crieria but I am now convinced that a simple DBH x number or even a stem height x number solution isn't possible. Probably looking at an algorithmic answer.