kevinjohnsonmbe

You started the ball rolling Tom! Mr Eggs was first out of the stocks with his characteristic satirical wit and real world humour, closely followed by Dave with his mock disbelief! What I actually said was "...seeing' a job that needs doing whilst out and about and making an introduction and describing the requirement to the tree / land owner then letting them decide if the logic makes sense..." I can see how it's happened, but my original statement doesn't translate directly to 'door knocking!' Examples - (1) Last week at the nipper's swimming lesson (me wearing tax efficient branded jacket!) nice lady with daughter in swimming class says "...Oh, do you do trees..?" Me - "...No, why do you ask...?" She - "...but your jacket...?" Me - "only joking, what's the situation...?" Result - Had a couple of hours with her walking around the holiday park estate, had another couple of hours doing the same with her husband today - net result = QTRA survey, management plan, quote for works (he's already told me what the local clown quoted (and he is a clown, and I hope he's reading this because this will be the second time I've encountered his dodgy dealings) (2) Nipper started school last September. Big ugly Euc in woodland school area, I took some pictures, wrote some words, gave it to the Head. The 'need' was obvious, but not urgent. I recommended factoring it into the 1-3 year budget. After a little while they got round to thinking about it and decided to get some quotes. 1 came from the other side of Exeter (50 or so miles away), another was the clown mentioned above who did the classic disappearing screwdriver trick which resulted in a panic and cordoning off of the entire playground area (until I got there to pick the nipper up and told the Head she'd been duped by a con artist) We did that take down at the next half term break. (3) I'll talk about 3 after the end of this week but it's a beauty! (4) Having a mate who's a busy architect generates a fair amount of work too. So, it's not quite "door knocking" in the do-as-you-likey fashion that has caused Dave such mock horror... It actually is 'seeing' a job that needs doing whilst out and about and making an introduction and describing the requirement to the tree / land owner then letting them decide if the logic makes sense..." and it fits well with the 'choose the customer' ideology that I've found works for me. I can understand and recognise that this sort of laid back approach wouldn't work for an outfit with FT staff, overheads and costs to service but it kind of works for my part-time, low intensity scenario.

Yertiz:

There was a long and detailed discussion and exchange of experiences on interface with NR a while back - can't for the life of me remember the topic title though. From my own experience, they are a total nightmare to engage with and will attempt the 'strong-arm', bullyboy, corporate power wielding at the earliest opportunity. If it goes via their process, or if they are in any way involved in discussion, it will result in adding 000£s to the bill and if the landowner decides not to take any action they will threaten the potential (real potential) of 000,000£s if any incident (or a train driver's perception of the potential for an incident (which leads to a stoppage or delay) occurs.) In my example, it was a TPO'd tree (amongst a group of 20 or so similarly TPO'd) at the top of a railway embankment. The age class and condition of the trees had resulted in the TPO approval to fell x4 (later superseded by a FC FL due to total qty) Monterey pine. x4 were reduced / felled, this one was not one of them. It had a significant lean towards the railway, showed notable growth features and characteristics of concern and would reach the railway if (a) the whole tree fell or (b) the top broke out - examples of which had been illustrated within the row of trees. The TO would not support felling of this tree (and I'm not wholly in disagreement) but the landowner was exceptionally worried about the (very real) potential for failure (given the age class and group history) and the huge moral and financial implications of such an event. I've got a good idea methinks! I'll get the NR track safety bod to join me and the TO onsite for an assessment... What a mistake that was! For simply highlighting the element of concern he was off and running! Now it was entirely MY liability if any incident occurred and in order to fell the tree I'd need him (at £500/day) and track monitors and this, and that and it all had to done straight away and under their complete control and direction. He was a total corporate mental case! I honestly believe he had no concept of real world process outside of NR. Try as I might, I simply could not get into his thick skull that I, personally, had no liability whatsoever for anything the tree did, or didn't do (unless I was involved in the felling operation) - that liability rests with the landowner, and if a TPO application was submitted and refused, potentially with the LA. No. Not having it! I was the named person on the contact form therefore it was me that was liable... No use telling him it wasn't my tree, just couldn't get through to him. No use telling him I may 'advise' the landowner but I can't 'force' them to do what I advise. Not even interested in the fact that the landowner was not at liberty to take any action without LA approval... Nothing, nada, just couldn't get through! It's probably time for a review on that site so this may all come up again soon But to answer the questions: (1) they will survey their own, and adjacent areas of land for hazards to their operation - however, the liability for any damage / incident that might occur remains absolutely with the tree owner. You can't outsource that responsibility because you think someone else might survey it. (2) You might get lucky, but I'd say it would be lucky rather than rely upon any expectation of rationale behaviour, expect to be bent over and royally vaselined! Best of luck!!

Just for info, a piece from the local vet’s webpage: It is now against the law to travel in a vehicle with your pet unrestrained. Fines of up to £2,500 are being given along with penalty points on your licence. It has been advised that dogs should travel on the back seat of the car secured by a harness attached to the seat belt or alternatively, they can travel in the boot as long as the parcel shelf has been removed. A dog cage secured in the boot is also a suitable way for your dog to travel. Cat carriers should either be placed on the floor behind the passenger seat or on the back seat of the car secured by the seat belt. Insurance companies are now warning their policy holders that their car insurance may be invalid if they are involved in an accident whilst travelling with an unrestrained pet in the car. Please ensure you and your pet are safe and secure before your travels.

I'm almost tempted to enlighten you.... But not

Cat amongst pigeons alert! Google 'racial profile of Grenfell Tower fraud.' I'm guessing it wasn't 100% occupied by "not British" residents and accept that it's not an exact science since the actual figures are be subdued - note the number of Googe hits that come up "sorry, that page has been removed / is not available", or, (if you're an apologist) it's probably because of the racial mix of the building. I'm not making any assumptions, just presenting the (limited) headlines from the Google search: (1) A 46-year-old woman has been charged with six counts of fraud in relation to the Grenfell Tower fire, Scotland Yard has said. Joyce Msokeri was arrested in July after allegedly making fraudulent claims for support offered to the survivors of the devastating blaze that killed at least 80 people. (2) Anh Nhu Nguyen, 52, of Beckenham, Kent, is accused of conning charities and Kensington and Chelsea Council out of the money by posing as a victim of the inferno for almost two weeks. Yup, that's right 2! Then it becomes kinda hard to find any details..... What I thought would be an opportunity for the apologists to say "well of course they're all not British born, the building was full of incomers" but what I now think is that the figures are being deliberately withheld from public consumption.... Now why might that be the case?

Spot on Tom!! Can't delay now, but will explain later...

I forgot an important one actually! I’m that tight, I generally get all my outdoorsy stuff from the catalogue of our local embroider http://bs-embroidery.com/Home/Contact Since I’m not the most fashion conscious dude on the ranch (although they do have some quality kit), and that it’s tax deductible and VAT rebatable, and it turns me into a walking advert, it’s a no-fail scenario! If I could get the Mrs & binlid kitted out there I’d be laughing!!

Not enough days in the week as it is! All a website would do is generate more wasters trying to get £20 off the last 2 dozen quotes they've had. Cock! I knew somebody would draw that conclusion... Reassuringly predictable Mr E (you beat Skyhuck and Mull to the draw mind....) It is, in my humble opinion, just as important to 'select' the customer as it is for the customer to select the service provider. If the property has a market value less than a £zillion or if there is no helipad (or nubile twin daughters) on the back lawn, just keep on driving

Don't have a website (have a FB page but that's not a new business generator), don't do leaflets, 3rd party websites (apart from QTRA but that's only ever generated 1 job in 2 years), don't do checkatrade etc, nor press. I'd estimate it's 33/33/33 between word of mouth, repeat customers and 'seeing' a job that needs doing whilst out and about and making an introduction and describing the requirement to the tree / land owner then letting them decide if the logic makes sense.

Trumps UN speech.... Anyone else wondering what movie he was watching whilst pulling that speech together....

Thanks David, I'm a bit transfixed on financial planning at the moment so it fell into that bracket of my thinking! Whatever the actual cost of that exercise, once measured against the assessed 'worth' of the individual tree, and factored against the number of trees in the park afflicted by footfall compaction... the cost over potential benefit ratio must be massively favourable.

I'm not sure the caravan club has quite the same degree of high level patronage and 'friends in the right places.' They must have some influence though.... Seems the law doesn't apply to 'em....

If I recall, the prospect was floated a while back.... The considerable and influential lobbying influence of The Caravan Club, of all people, successfully lobbied against it and here we are - no MoT tests for trailers / caravans etc....

Interesting exercise Could I ask some questions please David? - It looks like there are +/- 4 people involved? - Could you place an indicative cost bracket on delivering this exercise (assuming it was a day?)? (I'd like to try to understand if there is a realistic chance of delivering this level of care and attention to privately owned trees) - Where the roots were found to be diminished in the high compaction track area, would you expect them to recover if traffic was reduced and soil conditions improved or halt / reduce the denudation? - Was it freezing up North there or did you make them wear type C trousers as a punishment for some undisclosed misdemeanour?

Stefan had 'wheels turning' before the stems had hit the ground.....

Good point Gary, why take the hit to departmental resources + the risk of costs if things go wrong for no financial gain.... you could argue, it's for the public good, but that might not be a strong enough reason to convince the LA budgeteers!

Not too harsh... Goes nowhere near recovering the financial value which would have been apportioned to the trees if they had been assessed for financial "worth" under one of the available systems, nor does it appear that the level of the fine would act as a sufficient deterrent to future occurrences of a similar nature - when measured against the potential financial gain achieved from the development. Neither is what might be assumed from the reporting as the 'ignorant act of a farmer' [my assumption based on previous experience] any excuse. Perhaps a proceeds of crime order measured against the total value of the sale value of the land / development would be more appropriate? That said, well done NRW, FC - perhaps you might try and follow suit?

I think VOSA (or what ever it is they call themselves now - may be changed again tomorrow) are empowered to pull over a commercial vehicle, not so a private one - I think.

I'm aghast! 3 of the 4 most sensiblest (dreading Mr Bowlam's admission that he too might be a tech dodger) contributors to the forum openly admitting to not being prepared to swim a mile upstream through a river of excrement to queue up for days outside the nearest Apple store just to lick the hand of the first person to hold this unworldly treasure of consumer indulgence!?! Are you INSANE??? Watch this video, it's only 2 hours long: https://www.apple.com/apple-events/september-2017/?cid=CDM-EU-4632&cp=em-P0018233-386402&sr=em If, after watching that, you are not reaching for your budgy smugglers snorkel & mask, well, I'll truly despair!

Would appear to be " under qualified" for that.... there werent anything like enough random members of the public, bystanders, vehicles etc at risk!!

There are too many variables to try and put a sensible answer together Jules but.... It's not an uncommon situation and has been well debated at https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/office-building-in-garden-vat-treatment It's a pretty simple process of registration and it's a really useful resource.

There isn't a short, simple or particularly 'pleasing' answer to this Jules. Ill have to think it through and look some bits up.

Word is, he's sent a CV into Beechwood!!

So, tell me again how devastating it must be to have your offshore tax haven, ex-pat, yacht wrecked and how unfairly you've been treated by the neglect of the UK taxpayer funded UK government to drop everything and help you? So Irma claimed +/- 25 lives - proper tragic no doubt. But why are you so quiet - whilst sipping your Piña colada in your tax-free, island life and whilst pensioners are dying at a rate of 120,000 per annum in England and Wales of cold weather, or factors associated with cold weather such as a virulent strain of influenza. Anyone?