kevinjohnsonmbe
-
Posts
12,034 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
73
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Calendar
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by kevinjohnsonmbe
-
They’ve let Abbot loose on QT.... And some people STILL think the current Labour leadership are fit to make logical decisions...... ? Long may they remain in office, it’s such a gift!
-
Sorry shipmate, I think you were kippered by the landowner who showed you just enough to make you 'believe' it had been duly checked. If I were in your shoes (from what I can read from the thread), it'd be the landowner that I'd be narked with rather than the LA. Life's a roller-coaster, take it on the chin, ditch any loyalty to the bloke that kippered you and re-align yourself with the LA. (if I'm reading this right)
-
How did you know about that.....?
-
Unless I've missed it, I still don't think the binary question "is (or was) there / is there not, an existing TPO in effect on the new acquisition" has been answered. It's yes or no. If the answer is yes, then maybe or maybe not the new land owner intentionally misled the contractor and placed him in a position of vulnerability with the LA. If so, some mitigation may be applied.... If the answer to the binary question is "no", what are we wasting our time for, there's no case to answer.....?
-
Contemporary Issues in the Arboriculture Industry
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to McGowan214's topic in General chat
Idle yoof or grumpy old gits - which is the biggest burden in the Arb workplace.... That’d be a funny one! What is the purpose and audience of the presentation? That is essential detail in knowing what to suggest that might be useful.... -
Is it a fairly recent scheme then? I’d never heard of it then about 48hrs ago, boom, swamped with the bleeders... I took it as a scam at first!
-
I figured you were letting (quite understandable) historic frustration cloud the analysis Gary ? And far be it from my usual starting point to automatically side with “the man”, but the longer it goes until the OP affirms wether there actually IS (was) or ISN’T (wasn’t) a TPO in place all along, the further my sympathometer swings downwards (from an already fairly meagre 10.55%) probability of a miscarriage of justice! (I know! I already said 87.5% and plus 10.55% = 98.05% (I’m keeping 1.95% in reserve for unforeseen circumstances ?) ?
-
Bringing a lot of versatility to the job and saving some hard labour! #makinghardgraftfunagain! ?????? (I might have over-shot with the #tag.... Is it too late to change it to #makinghardgraftlessofaballache???)
-
You’re gonna be out on a limb (?) in a minute Khriss ? Ed’s in, Jules referred to it as “highly plausible”, Eggs ain’t buying the sob story and I reckon Gary’s ready to commit too.... Its getting pretty close to being mainstream (dammit!) and time to take off the tin foil bowler!! ?
-
I phoned 'em today to ask how they got my details and to take me off their system. They are data mining the web for email accounts and sending out automated emails. Really annoying - nearly 2 dozen in 24hrs! I've done the ICO complaint form (10 minutes to complete) hopefully if they annoy enough people they'll get shut down.....
-
Any one else getting bombarded by these idiots: https://www.bark.com/en/gb/ over a dozen emails (mostly in the small hours) with supposed 'leads' for new work. Phoned them today and said get me off your data base and sent complaint to ICO: https://ico.org.uk/concerns/nuisance-calls-and-messages/spam-emails/y/individual/y/y/n God bless GDPR regs!! ?
-
There's no mention of that..... But now you mention it, it could be a contributing factor....
-
Wouldn’t, as a general rule, ask/require a deposit. But I HAVE previously been let down by wasters that suck up too much of my time and effort visiting, considering, presenting options and quoting only to get the “my nephew is going to have a go at the weekend” the day before job start date. The merest hint of this potential now would result in a liberal helping of T tax and an upfront non-refundable pre-payment. Its very rare, but wouldn’t hesitate.
-
Poorly written on my part Gary! I don’t think either is equally probable!! I think it’s more likely 87.5% that the TPO always did exist and the homeowner is the villain of the piece!
-
You’ll see, just wait.... “...as far as i could see and from the correspondence with the tree officer there was no TPO...” Is not quite watertight! I’m thinking we’ve all been a bit quick to malign the LA! I mean, there either IS or ISN’T a TPO - binary yes/no. If NO then there has to have been inter-departmental LA collusion to cover up a shortcoming. If YES then the homeowner may have intentionally mid-led the contractor. On the balance of probability, if you ABSOLUTELY HAD TO choose 1 or the other, which would you put your money on???
-
There’s been no answer to that question! I’m going for the money shot! Colonel Mustard, in the Library with a lead pipe.... Or, to put it another way, based on the information provided (and, perhaps more importantly, not provided): There is a properly established, pre-existing TPO.... The homeowner has always known there’s a TPO but wanted to find a way round it so did a bunch of checks for nearby areas but specifically NOT the area in question .... Showed a bunch of previous correspondence to a contractor (if we hadn’t guessed) and contractor was sufficiently satisfied by what, on the face of it, looked like a genuine and diligent process and cracks on..... LA are understandable disgruntled and take appropriate action.... Contractor has fingers burned by fly operator and stands to face penalty.... How’s that? A million miles off or pretty close???
-
? Rare for Jules’ characteristically thoughtful, measured and broadly considered posts to exceed my characteristic bull-in-a-China-shopeque, shoot from the hip, hot-headed reactionary over exuberance! But he’s right, something’s amiss and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse wouldn’t drag me into any government building to subjugate myself to a nonsensical misappropriation of justice such as has been relayed!
-
My ArbTrak150 went out on first job yesterday. It massively exceeded expectations on a scheduled 3 day job and consequently I’m now sitting in the garden enjoying the ? with a cup of tea!! ??????
-
Nah, there are still some missing parts in this tale.... Are there or are there not paper copy of pre-existing TPOs? Did the land owner check and show copy of enquiry INCLUDING new area? if no TPO, no caution, no discussion with LA, no more nonsense. Im starting to think the home owner showed you just enough to make it sound diligent but may have intentionally withheld the important bits....
-
Perhaps make an appointment would be a better way of saying it? They must have some basis upon which to “offer” a caution - we’ve arrived at a really dark place if it is all just made up bluster - definitely some parts of the tale missing from somewhere...?
-
Counter assault with a harassment suit! Slam-dunk 'em!!
-
You'll never take us alive Copper.....
-
On reflection, if the land, as transferred, was subject to existing TPOs, it should have been flagged in the conveyancing surveys. IF the TPO(s) pre-existed the land sale there could be a case of the conveyancing solicitor not having undertaken sufficient / diligent searches OR the TPO(s) were served AFTER the land sale, in which case, the landowner should have been notified. The OP states that the purchase took place in Jan, the paperwork was received from council 6 months later (Jun) and the work was done in Aug. If the TPO(s) pre-existed the land transfer either it should have been flagged in the conveyancing or the papers included in the bundle received from the council? Something appears to be missing from this story somewhere.... I wouldn't be accepting any caution before the details were crystal!
-
I’d want to see the TPOs. Give notice of requirement to view them to LA, go in have a look, then be better informed to make a call.... it could be that the person supplying the “no TPOs” info checked the curtilage of his property BEFORE it was expanded rather than after....?
-
That is a fashion OUTRAGE! Socks and sandals should be a criminal offence.....
