kevinjohnsonmbe

I’m still looking for a downside for that 😂

Coincidentally, heard this news on the wireless earlier: Relative of Queen jailed for sexually assaulting woman at Scottish castle | UK news | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Simon Bowes-Lyon, the Earl of Strathmore, sentenced to 10 months over attack at Glamis Castle Are you still on the forum Kim / Rob?? Expect a visit (no - really) when current restrictions ease!

Now you're talking! Turn that 'liability' into a work of art which could add gazillions to the value of the property! Rob and Kim are down thereabouts - Rob probably work for food but Kim might want a commission! https://www.chainsawcarving-uk.com/about/

Would you go to 30 minutes before it fell over and just fell it or would you go 5 days before and put in a 5 day notice? How would you demonstrate the impending danger? Nobody was hurt so could you even cite “danger” as a justification?

Just trying to present as full a picture of the “potential” implications as might be possible. For example, removal of the entire tree would / could require a replant and a continuation of the TPO whereas removal only of that part which offends the neighbour (and retention of the remainder) might avoid a replant requirement.

You avoided the question though (Boris!) There is (at least) 1 good egg TO in that area that I know of who would very likely take a massively practical and sympathetic approach (I happen to think he’s a rare breed though) That said, there is an unequivocal legal requirement for the tree owner (I think perhaps not for the neighbour) to follow correct process - you agree Shirley?

😂 how dull would it be if we restricted ourselves solely to the 'practical' rather than the 'theoretical' and 'fanciful' realms Mick? I concede..... In practice, where no significant previous planning or ecological transgressions might have attracted the LA attention or ire, and where there is no obvious foul play or apparent potential financial or other nefarious gain, it could slip quietly under the radar of LA TO scrutiny. But that would have to be taken on risk. In the spirit of things though.... Would you concede that there are legal obligations which could result in a pants down hot crumpet for tree owner and unwary contractor if someone wades in with saws at full tilt and the smell of 2 stroke wafting across the valley?

2 key phrases jumped straight out at me from your cut & paste text! (1) most councils' guidance on TPOs is actually pretty wafty - maybe true, may also be out of date and incorrectly stated. (2) a competent arborist or an arboricultural consultant - what is a 'competent' arborist? (rhetorical (again)) Can't help but think it would be MORE interesting to see someone try and argue that it is (or when it became) dead. It would be easy enough to state that it could not be conclusively shown as being dead, and since 'dying' is no longer an exception, and that the burden of proof would rest with the tree owner / contractor rather than the TO light steps would be well advised.

No need..... It was a rhetorical question 😃 There is no specification for orientation of a tree within the TPO legislation. It could just as easily be horizontal and remain equally as subject to the TPO as it might be in the vertical plane. "Pheonix Trees" https://www.futurewoodlands.org.uk/assets/downloads/The-Ecology-of-Phoenix-Trees-in-Scotland.pdf Quote from Summary page v/vi: "...phoenix trees are a serious ecological phenomenon. They are also attractive and interesting trees that foresters and ecologists should appreciate better, and should bring to the attention of the wider public..." (I'm more interested in the potential for the encroached party to remedy the trespass without recourse to LA application / consent since it might provide some answers to long standing questions - but that's an aside) To assume it is 'dead' at the point of losing its root anchorage and upright orientation would be - well, reckless. To act upon such an assumption on the basis that there might be an exception to TPO legislation could be unlawful. I've just found a quick tinterweb screen shot to illustrate the point since I don't have time to search back through photo files to find a suitable example of an Oak, fallen and commencing the new phases of a life cycle which could continue for centuries. I refer back to my comment on page 1 - "...Since you’ve now said it has a TPO you might want to consider the implications..." There's more to this than simply seeking a cheap solution for removing the timber - "cheap" options could result in more expensive consequences if all aspects of the scenario are not properly considered.

When would you say it became ‘dead’ then?

Not quite as straight forward as that. Fallen over may result in tree ‘death’, but it’s not inevitable - TPO implications may very appropriately still apply (subject to relevant exemptions of course.) Maybe a circumstance like this might give rise to an answer to the long standing question of right to abate a TPO’d tree without recourse to LA application.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely...

If they go down that route (root 😂) there may well further expense in replanting / replacing the TPO tree too. Make it safe and retain ‘as is’ (if appropriate) would avoid costs associated with stump grinding, replanting and future TPO liabilities.

There’s a YouTube vid brewing...... 😂

To avoid the very real potential for sarcasm and acerbic wit, prob best to have a quick reality check. Unless it genuinely is an exceptional stick of wood and you manage to find someone that actually wants it, you might you might be better off trying to find someone who’s down on their luck and would have a hack at it in return for the firewood. Since you’ve now said it has a TPO you might want to consider the implications.

OK, hope that works out for you and it doesn’t fall foul of the business disaggregation definition which arises where artificial structures are created to avoid tax. Its just that you did say: “...Will also be buying a new truck so going vat registered will mean a lovely rebate hopefully...” If you run 2 companies and only 1 is VAT reg, any crossover between the 2 would likely attract particular attention from Hector. Simply having the same named officers / premises would likely be enough to flag an interest. Simple data set cross-match regardless of timeliness, content and accuracy of filing. Just saying mate, be careful. If you’ve been advised that it is OK, ask your advisor if their PI covers your cost of investigation and ask them to provide written copy of advice.

Have you sought professional advice about 2 companies with only 1 as VAT registered? Im not saying it’s not ‘possible’ but there does need to be a tangible degree of separation between the 2 in both the nature of the business and the ability to use the same ‘tools’ (including vehicles, plant etc) for both companies. If you had ostensibly the same business operating as both non VAT registered and VAT registered you should probably expect to be bent over by HMRC. Tread carefully.... Plenty of online info about this scenario.

Hope he rallies, as I would anyone. State funeral - Forth bridge - would be a significant challenge at the moment (on many levels.)

The ‘product’ of HMRC (creating the impression / belief that they are) shitting on the ‘little man’ is that they create an enemy of ‘tax’ for life. Least ways that what happened with me.

Business Income Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Supplementary guidance on how to check tax calculations or work out the trading profits of a business for Self...

I did think of your situation whilst I was ruminating earlier. Tax and employment liabilities have been allowed to become so unbelievably complex and contradictory that HMRC are able to ‘strong arm’ the little man into submission What worked for me when I had a little dance with Hector was, every time they quoted a reg, I insisted that they send me a link to the BIM so I could read it myself. Uncanny how often they we’re ‘interpreting’ or ‘misapplying’ the so called regulations. Are you still battling?

Been mildly entertaining listening to wireless today and hearing a succession of ‘tax experts’ lambasting Gov & HMRC over the extreme complexities and apparent disconnects in relation to employment status following the Uber (employed v self employed) court ruling. Doesn't affect me directly but I suspect some Arb outfits that still seem to advertise and engage ‘self employed’ staff on a regular basis may need to re-examine potential issues as this ruling is interpreted and implemented more broadly throughout gig economies.

Your LA must have an enviable call pic-up rate to make that work. Hereabouts, you’d likely spend 10-30+ minutes in a call queue to LA general number, then get redirected to forestry team auto-answer machine which would say leave a message and someone (might) get back to you within 10 days. Its just not practical to add another 2 weeks to the admin - and shouldn’t be necessary if notice is full and detailed. Whilst one might have direct mobile numbers for TOs, would never consider s211 notice warrant use of direct line. Proper emergency maybe, but not s211. Does your LA register s211 notice and allocate a planning application number? Could you explain how the process ‘works’ in regard to decision making in your situation.

👍🏻