kevinjohnsonmbe

MultiOne. Class leader and out performs Avant.

easily portable, versatile, gets you into narrow access areas.....

And there's me thinking it was a post EU referendum thread! First one was on film 4 the other day, planning to catch the 2nd at the cinema but not so keen as to be an opening night attendee!!

You haven't mentioned any training that you may have already done? If you haven't done CS 30/31 maintenance & crosscutting (old speak) NPTC course, don't be too proud, it's a great course (if well delivered) and will provide not only improved safety, but also increased efficiency and effectiveness and may save you some maintenance cost too. Highly recommended!

Speed! Must be a critical factor. I'm "driving miss daisy" when loaded up. Couldn't give a monkeys for speed jockies breaking their neck to get past. Some of the wagons I see flying around with heavy trailer loads makes me cringe!

I had to look that up.... Extreme 4x4 Ltd ANTI ROLL BAR UPGRADES & KITS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-roll_bar Another school day!

Glad it didn't result in serious injury. Hope all gets settled for you soon. Thanks for sharing and potentially helping others avoid similar bad fortune.

We'll await the pic Adamski....

Appreciate the offer! Sales pitch could perhaps do with a bit of sparkle! :big grin: Sthil RRP is £255 KM 56 RC-E - Easy to start and light-weight KombiEngine with ErgoStart (E). The ideal KombiEngine for all around-the-garden tasks. Available box new at £178 https://www.toolbritannia.co.uk/garden-tools--machinery-z/other-garden-tools-z15/stihl-km56rc-e-kombi-engine~stitkm56rce?gclid=Cj0KEQjwhZm7BRCUyfS6ho2VjOEBEiQAumpGMrhUA_MVb_tV8V4o2sCQACYWzSF5V8lfaVnDx2t-8lsaAnSV8P8HAQ 2012, looks like crap, £100 + shipping...... I'll have to "have a think" about that...

Thanks, that could be an option! What year is it and what sort of money are you looking for? I'll have a look at local dealer prices, it may be that shipping & 2nd handedness (made up word) could push me towards getting a new one with warranty.

Anyone got a recommend for a shorter pole pruner - I've got Sthil HT131 but looking for something shorter. Something like a multitool but not, just a shorter pole saw. I'm starting to think it'll have to be a multitool but with just the chainsaw head?

It seems from your description that the tree might be in your ownership - is that right? Has your planning application already been submitted? What sort of "roof conversion" is it? Are you increasing the current height?

I have a theory.......

Brilliant....! Made me chuckle!! Often way past the point where the OP has lost interest, disappeared off the thread, changed career and someone else has been in and boshed the tree over! :lol:

Hi Ed, sorry not related to your original post (although I see it's had lots of "looks" but no replies!) I wondered if your avatar was a Dorset flag so googled it, hadn't seen that before!

Just observations.... The home owner has seen other trees fail.... As described by Ball & Ball-King in Public Safety and Risk Assessment – Improving Decision Making (2011), exposure to a memorable accident either directly or indirectly through a recent news story may lead to an inclination to rate the probability of a recurrence as higher than it actually is. They've seen other trees fail so perhaps assume "that's what trees do?" It could be that the tree IS "safe" (relatively speaking) Maybe the "client management" could take the form of reassuring them of the relative safety (after a duly diligent inspection) and assuming there are no indicators to the contrary. I think the car analogy is a reasonably sound and relevant one - I think you kind of argue against it's irrelevance by referencing the seat belt / service checks comparison. In the 2 examples, 1 has the car as the potential hazard, the other the tree. Amelioration of risk for the car is the seat belt / service checks, for the tree it would be an inspection and action based upon observable defect no? Anyway, just thinking out loud....

http://www.treehugger.com/lawn-garden/use-wood-mulch-save-planet.html

Yep..... The job would be a good deal better without the customers at times, I'm on a downer with the lot of em at the moment! Bloody PITA!

Shocker!

It's an understandable predicament. If it is causing an obstruction of the highway that might be the line to take. Our LA used to have a specific line in the road hedge cutting contract / guidance which specified that the contractor must clear away all arisings. I can no longer find that detail and it's plain to see every year that flail cutting of road hedges by LA contractors leaves the roads strewn with debris which then blocks the drainage culverts exacerbating Winter flooding. And this is LA contractors so, in reality, little chance they'll act against independent operators. If it troubles you enough, report it and try and get it fixed but there's always the potential that the outfit being reported could react adversely.

Finger bar in first pic - awesome!

Fair one, what I should of added was, although I guess you can't blame 'em, it's not the sort of customer I'd waste any future effort or time on, that's what was on my mind but I got distracted and forgot to finish it off.....

£180 - £36 tax (assuming it's declared and at the lower rate) = £144 £30 Weigh in for waste (assuming it's taken away and disposed properly) = £114 £80 Something for a second bloke (maybe) = £34 (excluding fuel & kit costs) and then back in the real world - single bloke, burn the brash, make a few quid on the logs, takes 2 days to bash through it, paid cash undeclared, he might make a ton a day for 2 days.... I suppose it's better than being on the dole.... Unless he's claiming as well then it's probably a nice little tickle....

Hi Gary, this little chip only really relates to (A) and I held off for a while because I thought there might have been a bit of background that would bubble up in the discussions. I think the piece I was wondering about has come out in the previous discussions and that is, if I'm reading it correctly, that the tree owner submitted the notice rather than you? So you can't undo what is already done, and I think you'll tire of trying to "fix" what could well be a valid frustration as you describe it. I know exactly what you mean! I try and avoid the situation arising in the first place by making submissions via the Planning Portal. You get a validated submission confirmation straight away and it's up to "the system" to process the application within the set timeframes. It doesn't always result in a decision within the allocated timeframe, but there can be no debate or confusion over what the timeframe is! No help if you're trying to resolve an existing situation but a sound method of avoiding getting your own submissions in a pickle.

You're on the mark there! I'd suggest, the problem is not just the back of a fag packet quoters though, the other perhaps equal part of the problem is the quality of the customer. If their prime focus is price - regardless of professionalism, quality, reliability, adherence to industry and legal requirements etc, etc ,etc, then the Chainsaw Charlie, Saturday morning firewood brigade will always fair better. I just quoted for dismantle, lower and removal of a stem failure Oak - partially entangled in adjacent trees and elevated above a steep embankment. I thought I'd probably under-priced it slightly but was (at that time) interested in establishing a relationship. No surprises, my price was, to quote the customer "significantly higher" that the alternative. During the site visit to price that tree, I also highlighted several others that presented real and present danger of failure. They've already had 2 whole tree failures and 1 major limb failure this year in high target areas. It's a corporate outfit so I'd hoped they would be receptive to a management plan rather than reactive clearances and chancing to luck that they don't suffer an injury or damage. Fell on deaf ears with the lame excuse that they hadn't budgeted for any survey work. Here's my morale dilemma - there is a significant and notable avenue of mature trees, predominantly Oak - some of which require sympathetic management to ameliorate risks they may present to high target areas. There is the potential for these trees to become notable or veteran if managed appropriately but I suspect the owner will engage local zipperhead to smash some lumps out or simply fell to remove potential risk. Dilemma: (1) forget it, move on, don't be surprised when they are gone. (2) pass details of trees and threat of loss (based upon known aversion to responsible management) to LA with request for TPO consideration. Just to clarify, it's not sour grapes about not getting that job. I pitched my price, someone else pitched theirs, so be it (they must be at cost or below.) What would trouble me is the loss of potential veteran trees because the landowner doesn't appreciate the asset they are custodian for. At least if there was a TPO, there would be some element of oversight in future management. Perhaps, if "we" as an industry proposed more TPO's it would make it harder for less proficient / conscientious operators to deliver the budget works??