s75 claim

richardbridge7

I have recently paid for supply and fitting of a shed and a concrete base onto which the shed was to be laid. The cost of the shed was paid by credit card (the shed is yet to be delivered and fitted) and the concrete base was paid in cash upon completion.

However, two days after the base was laid, it transpired that the tradesman who had laid the base had cut off a load of roots of the tree near to the base and as a result, the tree had fallen down and the concrete base is now useless as it is all broken up where the tree's roots have uprooted it. Fortunately, the tree has not caused more damage.

We are now in a situation whereby the base needs to relaid as well as the tree chopping up and taking away, not to say anything of the fact that we have lost a lot of privacy and a lovely plum tree.

I suspect that the retailer may not agree to remedying all of the above and I would like to know whether the fact that we paid part of the cost by credit card (£450) means that we are covered for the consequential loss in terms of chopping up the tree and removing it as well as possibly returfing below the dead grass.

And secondly, whether we should be entitled to any compensation for the loss of privacy that we have incurred.

I assume that we may need to get an independent report from an arborculturalist to confirm that it was the due to its roots being cut that it fell down.

If the worse comes to the worse (and I hope it doesn't) and I need to take small claims action, should I include both parties as the defendants ?

McKneff

Not sure about the legalites of it all, but as you told them where to put the shed and you knew the tree was in the same vicinity, surely you have to bear some responsibility.

thenudeone

The tradesman who cut the tree roots and laid the base was paid in cash (I think).

What have the suppliers of the shed or the credit card company used to pay for the shed got do do with that tradesman?

Gromitt

You may have a case against the company providing the foundation for the shed, but I don't see why the people providing the shed would have any involvement at all.

I see it as two seperate contracts, so your still bound to have the shed delivered on the expected date, unless you agree with them another date.

You may also find that the people laying the base argue that they placed it exactly as requested by you and didn't do a survey first as it wasn't requested.

Buzby

Afraid I concur, your purchase has nothing to do with the base construction which was the cause of your problems.

You stipulated the location of the base, and as such would (or should) have anticipated the likelihood of a root network so close to the base. Indeed, it could be argued that if the tree remained untouched by the base, the roots may well have resulted in the eventual break up of the base and by extension issues with he stability of he shed resting upon it.

If there would be anyone to blame it would be your contractor who built be base for cash - and therefore no s75 protection applies. However, he could counter by saying he followed your instructions and if the works impacted on the tree roots, you should have been aware of this.