Gary Prentice

Just think, If you wasn't SE you would have been paid for every minute that you sat there!

I wonder if that would extend to access trees on that land. Might be a stretch but I'll have a read.

As I've little much else to do I'll do some reading on that. Good thought.

This thread made me think of a firm that I did some work for back in 1987, a few weeks after the Great Storm. A bit of googling and I found a picture of the crane wagon they had https://www.logon4firewood.co.uk/about/ I think that I only worked at the place for a few weeks before moving to Barnsley to get married. I think that I worked clearing trees on this site https://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/feeling-of-horror-as-i-surveyed-the-scene-memories-of-working-to-clear-newmarket-s-roads-of-trees-felled-by-the-great-storm-of-1987-1-8203236/ but I may be wrong. Is there anyone on from, or who knows, Logon4Firewood, as I wouldn't mind a copy of the crane pic if they would oblige. My main memory is of James Waugh dropping the spades and starting to winch something in. Whatever it was caught up, he continued to winch and lifted the front of the wagon several feet into the air before something gave. The wagon come down with a bang and IIRC smashed the front diff or something on the front axle. Can anyone identify the make for me? Edit; and a couple more old crane pics on a website of the first arb company that I ever worked for. The crane was, I think in use, when I started in 1986 or 87. Or another one very similar http://easterntreesurgery.com/gallery/

I have said that this might be the only solution, albeit increasing the cost of the job significantly. here's less than a day for a climber in the tree, adding a huge big Mewp will double or triple the cost. That's the part that peeves me and it isn't even his tree. I'm interested as to what the solicitor comes up with, wondering whether because the consent from the LA was based on an application stating the work was necessary due to the potential of failure of the overhanging limbs, that would be sufficient to get a court judgement to get the owner to do the work at their own expense.

I think that you're probably right. However I can imagine the Police being called (whether they'd attend or not) and an angry tree owner running around would be really difficult, awkward and uncomfortable for the lads on site. I just want to get all the interested parties together, bang their heads together and find a outcome to make the tree safe as quickly, easily and at the lowest financial cost possible. Stop being difficult, sort it out to be advantageous to everyone, just don't be fooking awkward

They're called Zombie Killers now Westie, do try to keep up.

Don't know. Will you have to leave if Brexit is enacted?

What could possibly go wrong?

From the title I wondered why foreigners would need different equipment to anyone else!

So that's a fair bit of encroachment. What sort of diameter will the limbs be at the fenceline?

Yeah but, but, but. The minority lost and didn't get what they voted for. They lost but now we don't accept that there are losers in life. Not even in the egg and spoon race at primary school! There's no choice other than to have another referendum, in the hope that the losers win and get what they want. Bet then we have new losers, those that voted to leave, so we'll have to vote again so that, they aren't losers - ad infinitum until everyone votes the same way and there are no losers. So we have to

This is News because?

How far does the canopy extend over the boundary?

As an example of how bad these issues can actually become, I'll write about a tree I got involved with a while back. A fellow contacted me after a limb fell from his neighbours tree, landed on his garage roof and then fell on to three cars on he drive. The tree was a Hybrid poplar around seventy foot tall, protected by a TPO, and had in previous years shed a number of limbs and damaged my clients garage, fencing, a car and other articles. The owners are elderly and until recently the neighbour relationship was cordial. Previously, with the agreement of the owners my client had applied for permission and got consent from the LA to reduce the canopy over his property.The work was done at my clients expense. My client repairs a few cars at home, part time, in his large double garage. Two of the cars recently damaged on his drive also belonged to customers. He seems a reasonable fellow, but who really knows. After this last failure, he has approached the owner in an attempt to do something to prevent further accidents. For whatever reason the relationship has broken down, they are threatening solicitors if he touches the tree (with or without La consent). Prior to contacting me a contractor had been contacted about at least pruning some of the overhanging canopy. This contractor had spoken, I'm told, to the TO and had been advised to steer clear of the situation. He bailed out, leaving my client without help, which I personally think is a unenviable position. The tree is late mature and not in perfect structural condition. I identified four or five limbs of significant diameter and length ( 50 +cm diameter and at least 13 m in length) that are over-extended with clear indications of internal structural defects. Fortunately these are all over the owners garden and if/when they fail would probably remain in that garden. I also identified some limbs growing over the client's property that were more prone to failure, being over extended and with some structural issues such as cavities and or being long epicormics/reaction growth resulting from the previous pruning. I suggested an application to deal with all the issues throughout the crown, to reduce the potential for further failures, but the client said that the owners wouldn't are adamant that they will not do anything nor allow anything to be done to the tree. I suggested providing a report on the tree so that all the immediate problems could be addressed and a contractor could access the tree to get to the part over the boundary. But the relationship is now so bad that the owner will not entertain any communication other than through solicitors. I also suggested that by highlighting the branches over the clients property that, in my opinion, have a high failure potential the onus could be pushed towards the owner, in that they were aware of the dangers, did nothing and in the event of a failure and damage to my clients property would have been negligent. Understandably the client didn't want to just wait for another limb to fail. I submitted an application to address the issues on that part of the canopy over the clients property, including a note that any objection by the the owners to pruning trespassing limbs would be irrelevant and should be disregarded and that he application must be determined only on the affects to the tree and its amenity. The application was determined/consented within two weeks. My client is still talking to solicitors. I've suggested getting the contractor he appoints to try to talk to the owner to explain how the work that the council have agreed to is necessary in the hope that they can gain access to the tree. Otherwise they're going to need a huge Mewp which will add hundreds to the job. (I don't hold much hope that sense will prevail, but I've done my job in providing the application and getting consent. Who'd have neighbours?

Right, @Daltontrees has answered this once or twice, but I can't find the thread. I'm not a great writer, but I'll do my best. Encroaching limbs and roots can never achieve a 'right' to occupy another property by prescription. (Prescription - the establishment of a claim founded on the basis of a long or indefinite period of interrupted use, encroaching or trespassing limbs and roots) They never achieve Squatters rights! It would be a ridiculous and unreasonable legal position where the trespassed upon, the adjacent landowner' was prevented from resulting to self help to abate the nuisance of encroaching limbs and roots simply because something detrimental might happen to the tree. Afterall, if the tree owner had controlled the growth of the tree, restricting it ot their own property, the neighbour wouldn't have to take action. When it comes to liabilities, it is very dependent on the circumstances as to where they lie. I'll try to address your examples in order. "the tree becomes unstable with the weight only on one side" I'll take the liberty of amending this to 'becomes immediately unstable', to start with. When things go wrong, liability really boils down to who was at fault or to blame. Did removing all the limbs on one side of the tree cause it to fall over the following day? Then, would a reasonable person have foreseen the result of their actions? Being the knowledgeable and experienced arborist, of course the consequences of your actions were considered! Could the tree owner reasonably, after you've shorn the canopy, taken suitable action to prevent the tree falling over, i.e prunes it to balance the canopy or felled the tree. But, then did he reasonably have time to take action as a responsible person/tree owner would be expected to do? In these circumstances, the contractor would probably be deemed the negligent if the tree failed very soon after the pruning, as the incident would be considered foreseeable. So now we're in a position where the trespassed upon can't exercise their right to self abatement for fear of then becoming liable for their actions. One course of action would be to seek a County Court Judgement, to force the tree owner to abate the trespass or nuisance. Bear in mind the nuisance is an 'ordinary nuisance', not a legal nuisance where damage is actually occuring, but the neighbour can't self abate so has no choice other than to seek help from the courts. Here's where others are going to disagree, but here goes. My opinion is that by forewarning the tree owner of the intent to cut back to the boundary, in the knowledge that to do so could or would cause the tree to become unstable, changes where the liability lays. The tree owner then becomes aware hat the tree might fail after the neighbour has exercised their ability to result to self help. If the owner doesn't' take action to safeguard the tree, then who is to blame and who has become negligent in preventing a foreseeable incident? They can't reasonably hold the neighbour to ransom to prevent them exercising their right to self help, can they? So my answer is, if you don't give the owner notice to take action and the tree falls as a result of the pruning, the liability falls to the contractor. The failure was foreseeable. But if the owner has a reasonable opportunity to take action, as a reasonable person would, and doesn't then the fault or liability falls at their door. "disease and decay entering into the tree through inter-nodal ‘boundary cuts" Once again, encroaching branches and roots have no right to occupy another's land. If, in exercising the right to result to self help the tree suffers, well to be blunt, tough. If the owner had kept the tree confined to their own land it wouldn't' have had to be badly pruned to abate the trespass. Going further, if the resulting decay caused a failure at a later date the responsibility would fall squarely on the owner. A tree owner, as a reasonable person, is expected inspect their trees to prevent them causing damage or harm to others. Decay is a longer term issue, so even if it is a result of the pruning the owner has sufficient time to take whatever remedial action as is necessary. I'll add the addendum now that I'm an Arb, not a solicitor, posting on this forum hopefully for the benefit of others. Rely on my opinions at your own risk! A bloke on the internet may not be your best defence if you end up in court. Hope this all makes sense, if it doesn't, ask and I'll try to clarify. Firstly

I'm researching an answer on YouTube Recently wrote a report on a cypress lifting a driveway. I recommended seeking legal advice but included some of the options available to resolve the problems. The owner, a retired Police officer who resolutely refused to acknowledge any problem, got a copy of my report and had the tree out that week. I like helping people, but get a little twisted pleasure when the owners being a right twonk

Fixed that for ya?

There will be opposing opinions on this. Can I answer tomorrow when I can use something better than my phone?

I did once ratchet strap an extension ladder to the ladder rack on a transit. The less said said about that the better H&S was considered less in the old days

You're a thougherly modern man Mark, most chains keep them closer to the sink.

you said against the trunk I.e against the trunk, I'm talking about any part of the tree ?

Bit like collecting all your neighbours leaves off the lawn and throwing them over the fence. Fly tipping. Maybe you should ask first

Nor RSI's

Tutor at college was unsure whether you could put a ladder anywhere on the tree, being the neighbours property, even parts above the neighbours land. never been able to get a definitive answer from a reliable source.