Ledburyjosh

More ChatGPT... some good learning. My original post was wrong. Based on Daltontrees and some AI research it OP may well have a case against the tree owners. Tree-Related Dampness as Legal Nuisance One-Page Reference Sheet for Arborists Core Principle If a tree on someone’s land causes continuing physical interference (e.g., dampness, moisture retention, blocked airflow) to a neighbouring property, and the owner knows or ought to know, they must take reasonable steps to abate it. Failure to act creates liability for ongoing damage. This mirrors the logic from Delaware Mansions v Westminster (2001). --- When Trees Can Cause Damp-Related Nuisance Dense canopy preventing drying of walls Vegetation enclosing narrow gaps between trees and buildings Branches or foliage touching structures and holding moisture Leaf litter blocking gutters causing overflow and penetrating damp Persistent shading leading to algae, staining, or wall deterioration Actionable when effects are substantial, not minimal. --- Relevant Case Threads Ball v Johnson (1925): Damp and deterioration from vegetation treated as nuisance. Smith v Giddy (1904): Vegetation affecting land enjoyment and building condition actionable. Lemmon v Webb (1894): Acknowledges that interference with air/light may amount to nuisance if damage results. Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940): Owner liable for continuing nuisance once aware. Delaware Mansions (2001): Knowledge + failure to act = liability for ongoing harm. --- Liability Trigger Test 1. Is the vegetation causing or contributing to dampness or physical deterioration? 2. Is the interference material, not trivial? 3. Does the tree owner know or should they reasonably know? 4. Have they failed to take reasonable steps to abate the issue? 5. Is the damage foreseeable and continuing? If yes: nuisance is likely established. --- Typical Evidence Used in Claims Photographs of persistent damp or staining Surveyor or damp specialist reports Gutter/drain inspection images Records of prior notification to the tree owner Timeline of worsening condition Shadow studies or canopy density notes --- Practical Notes for Arborists Advise clients that damp-related nuisance is legally recognised when damage is provable. Recommend early action once notified to avoid liability. Keep written records of inspections, advice, and works. Management options: reduction, thinning, clearance from walls, improved airflow, or phased removal. --- The Takeaway Trees causing dampness can create a legal nuisance. Once an owner is aware, inaction opens the door to liability. The logic of Delaware Mansions applies beyond subsidence into any continuing, damaging interference.

ChatGPT summary: Here’s the crisp, arborist-friendly decoding of Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City Council [2001] UKHL 55, delivered with a hint of narrative sparkle 🌿📚 The core story A row of London mansion-block flats began to sigh and settle, their foundations quietly distorted by thirsty tree roots from a London plane owned by Westminster City Council. The freeholder spent money on underpinning the building, then turned to the council and said: you caused this; reimburse us for the remedial works. Cue the legal spotlight. What the House of Lords decided The Lords offered three key principles that still echo through arboricultural liability circles: 1. A continuing nuisance gives rise to ongoing liability If roots keep trespassing beneath someone’s land and causing damage, that is a continuing nuisance. Even if the tree has stood there for decades, once the landowner (the council) knows or ought to know about the damage their tree is causing, they must act. 2. Knowledge triggers responsibility The council knew about the damage and didn’t remove the tree or take mitigation steps. Once aware, they had a duty to abate the nuisance, and failing to do so made them liable for the consequences. 3. The claimant can recover reasonable remedial costs Even though the freeholder incurred underpinning costs before acquiring the property, the Lords held that those costs were recoverable. The critical point: the nuisance was ongoing, and the council failed to stop it despite notice. Why this matters for tree professionals This case is a quiet titan in UK tree-law. It means: 🌱 Root-induced subsidence creates liability if you know about the risk and don’t act. 🌱 Formal notice (letters from insurers, engineers, surveyors) puts the tree owner firmly in the hot seat. 🌱 Failure to act becomes negligence and nuisance, even if the tree wasn’t negligent before you were warned. 🌱 Costs reclaimable include expert fees, underpinning and other remedial works, as long as they are reasonable. The nutshell takeaway Once you’re aware a tree is causing subsidence, you must act. Ignoring it leaves you paying for the underpinning party, and possibly more.

Capital assest value for amenity trees That sounds like the thing your after. Depends how big your talking for replacements.. tree spades and big trees are expensive. You'd have to work out the coating yourself there would be many variables.

Sounds like you've been on the scales fully kitted out?

I would typically agree with the knowing the tree was there statement. But Daltontree post seems legally more accurate, suggesting things can be done but the expense would appear to be the limiting factor, hence little ever does get done by tree owners in this situation as its not affordable to pursue it, for most anyway.

Thanks. So I should change that last sentence to 'it can be the councils problem if you have deep pockets and a stubborn attitude.'

Good to know, if I find it may be better oriented 90 degree more I will give one a go

They almost made something good there...

Inner tube installed.. plus some other uses for the inner tubes. I will be selling sections of inner tube for £1 + VAT, + postage for those interested Stops carabiner spinning Holds a carabiner secure on a tool strop and keeps a bit more length compared to girth hitching

Apologies. Bike inner tubes work well for this. cut a section out and with a twist it holds it in place. I'll post a picture later

This is the one. Thanks

Apart from the single point of wear, you will get. A stainless swivel bit would be a good upgrade, assuming its alluminium atm.

I think it will have potential £260 +VAT also puts it way ahead of any other device, similar to midline attaching srt device in the price department £100ish less than the Akimbo 2, £150ish less than a blackbird, £80 less than a RRP. A big factor for those who work on two lines. That is where they will win at the market, an affordable device that appears to do everything, and may be the device that gets the remaining hitch climbing people on to a mechanical either to dabble with SRT as well as using MRT

Meaning that there may be a legal argument for the council to prune or remove trees? How would you assess or quantify what level of deprivation warrants action?

Fixed or very stiff in position would be what im after. So it's not flopping around and always in the same place

Before srt Inused to use a pinto with a belay master carabiner and sling as my anchor. I just accepted I went back up to get it at the end of the job... now I think **************** that as I retrieve my base tie line from the ground

If the trees over hang your property (property being the entire plot, garden, buildings etc) you can prune them back to the boundary without permission from the tree owner. Other restrictions may apply I.e. tree preservation orders and conservation areas. This would be at your expense. The council do not have to do this for you, as you have the right to do it yourself. The need to clean your gutters annually is not a valid reason to request the trees are pruned, beyond what's mentioned above. That is simply the management required for being fortunate enough to live next to trees. A nuisance in a legal sense will not cover the damp, its evident from your post this just needs regular maintenance. A nuisance with trees may typically be direct damage, such as a tree branch knocking a gutter off or tapping a window not damp through a lack of maintenance relative to the environmental factors your property is affected by. It is feasible, and common that council owned blocks of trees are poorly managed and would likely benefit from thinning which would simultaneously better your situation. They have no obligation to do this though and only have to fulfill their Duty of care and ensure they are safe enough, it doesn't matter if they are otherwise poorly managed. In short from what you have described its not the councils problem.

What ways have people come up with for a attaching a fixed ring or something to the rear handle of a ground saw for hanging it off a caritool? Up until today I used to hand them of the front handle. But I know want to rack it bar facing down. The idea being similar to the fixed points on the husky top handles. It's always in the same place unlike the ring on the strop aswell as holding the saw higher.

I have one on my 500i.. Stihl Full Wrap Handles BELLEBROOKARB.CO.UK Stihl Full Wrap Handles For control and handling I asked my stihl dealer to get one initially. They just said they aren't available in the EU. Which is wank to not supply that for one of the best arb saws available when you can readily get one for a 462.

Yes and yes, although the hinge quality on most Ash trees particularly the larger ones are unaffected by Ash dieback. Another tree served notice on by the highways. Set back 5m from the road edge with relatively lol usage and hardly declining. No way did it warrant removal let alone 28 day notice from highways. Very poor judgement. Sadly I was just the hired gun to kill it for another company. I'm awaiting a job direct for myself where I can offer to appeal the notice. Its all to common the highways are serving notice on trees that would be deemed tolerable risk if using QTRA which I know they use. So appealing it should be fairly straight forward.

Are the top attachment holes smaller? Or is that perspective making it look smaller on a larger pulley On the Pintos this is..

Interesting article.. I can't help but think the urban factors he mentioned may just be irrelevant and the trees genetics alone it's the primary reason for its reasonable health. This can be evidenced by many healthy Ash trees surrounded by declining ones that do not have any of those urban factors he's has discussed. Which to some extent invalidates his observations, particularly as its a sample size if one he discusses. And as he mentioned, other Ash trees, just streets away, are declining. Presumably these would also have the urban factors he mentions as the reasons this particular Ash tree is doing OK, again suggesting that it's more likely genetics being the primary factor. I do agree that many thousands are being felled without a valid reason based on poor risk assessments, panic and tree surgeons cashing in on it.

I'd disagree and say its far from crap on a 10". The extra 2" also makes poking the bar in between branches for some pruning cuts a bit easier before the body gets in the way.

I use a ported stihl 201 back handle for larger takedowns. A husky 540i top handle, less so now I have the 201 and the echo dcs2500 for pruning or little takedowns