Moral Dilema - help

cyclonebri1

McKneff wrote: »

:T
Excellent post.
Our neighbours out the back have these and cut theirs down last year and all we have on our side now is bare 9ft sticks of trees with no leaves no nothing popping over our garden fence. Please bear it in mind.

I think maybe your a bit to blame too to be honest.

While Im thinking, did you ask if he had public liability insurance, its amazing how easy a small tree top can reduce a shed to matchwood.

To be honest if I had a 20ft high conifer hedge overlooking me and the gardener left 9ft high stakes in it's place I would be delighted.;);)

My view is this, if he din't do what was quoted, he should be prepared to walk away with no fee, if you insist he does what was agreed, he completes and you pay him.

It does seem pretty simple if you can see it that way?.

Leif

krisdorey wrote: »

You have to give him a chance to put it right (three times I think), you can't just go and get someone else in and withhold his payment or offset it.

Unless he doesn't want to do the job of course and agrees to the arrangement.

In law you do have to give him the opportunity to do the job correctly, unless you can prove he is not competent. And in law you should pay him his fee, minus what you pay someone else to finish the job. That is what I was told by Trading Standards after someone bodged a job for me.

I do feel sorry for your neighbours, twenty feet, arrgghhh. And there is me worrying about the little Maple next door and what size it will reach in 10 years.

cyclonebri1

Leif wrote: »

In law you do have to give him the opportunity to do the job correctly, unless you can prove he is not competent. And in law you should pay him his fee, minus what you pay someone else to finish the job. That is what I was told by Trading Standards after someone bodged a job for me.

I do feel sorry for your neighbours, twenty feet, arrgghhh. And there is me worrying about the little Maple next door and what size it will reach in 10 years.

Yes I agree leif, a different perspective but the same foundation.

keystone

Interesting that I read the OP as saying that the line of conifers is 20 feet along the ground rather than 20 feet high.

Anyway this isn't a moral question at all. Its a contractual one.

You told him you wanted them reduced to about 7 feet. He stopped at ten because of all the brown dead stuff inside and he was worried about it. Not unreasonable if he's starting out and is inexperienced. I think he did the right thing to stop at 10 feet with the intention of discussing it with you because if he took it down to 7 and it looked a real dogs breakfast (which it will anyway whoevere does it) and he incurred your wrath then where to go? You can always trim some more off. You can't stick stuff you've cut off back up again. Now I don't read that he has declined to follow your instructions to reduce them to 7. So you should confirm to him that this is what you want to happen and he should then do it irrespective of what it looks like afterwards. Lets face it even a fully qualified tree surgen of 25 years experience won't be able to make it look very much if that much is coming down. It will just have to look brown, straggly and stunted until it grows out again.

If you do not want him to finish the job then you have an obligation to pay him for the work that he has done IMO. Others are correct on the legal obligation front. But I think if you just have a nice chat about it you will get it done.

Cheers

cyclonebri1

keystone wrote: »

Interesting that I read the OP as saying that the line of conifers is 20 feet along the ground rather than 20 feet high.

It's called speed reading aided by the fact that those dam leylandii chose 20ft as the 1st pit stop, not the finish line:D:D

keystone

Thanks for that amusing perspective.:cool: Still think I'm right though. Its the row thats 20 feet long not the height.

Cheers

Steve_the_fitter

I think you at the very least need to cover his costs. You wanted your trees cutting to 7ft and got a young lad to do it on the cheap no doubt. Now he has cut them to 10ft with an explanation why and you are saying you will get someone in to cut them down to 7 and pay him the difference. Will you be getting another young lad in on the cheap to do this or a tree surgeon who will no doubt be charging more than the young lad to finish off the job leaving him out of pocket.
You need to tell him you want them cut down to 7ft however it looks and imo pay him extra if his waste costs go up because of it.

Steve_the_fitter

you did read it right 20 ft long and very high.

keystone wrote: »

Thanks for that amusing perspective.:cool: Still think I'm right though. Its the row thats 20 feet long not the height.

Cheers

cyclonebri1

keystone wrote: »

Thanks for that amusing perspective.:cool: Still think I'm right though. Its the row thats 20 feet long not the height.

Cheers

No, you were right, that's how it read, not how I read it:D

But 1 day you will be WRONG, :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

keystone

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

No, you were right, that's how it read, not how I read it

Ahh!

But 1 day you will be WRONG,

I was - only just the other day, And I apologised too. You must have missed it.

Cheers