Neighbour cut tree roots. Tree now fell down

keystone

Davesnave wrote: »

People on these forums are always doing the back room barrister thing, but the reality is that it costs serious time and money to pursue people through the legal system, and even then you have no great certainty of a result.

I agree but it is still an option for the OP at the far end of the scale should he wish to pursue it that far, I did say "could" not "should" or "must". If that little jibe is directed at me you've misread what I was saying.

What's certain is that you'll end up with a neighbour dispute and the very real possibility of future hostility, manifesting itself in unpredictable ways.

Indeed so - hence my " Have you been round for a chat?" question.

In this case I'd go for damage limitation, by pleasant negotiation with the neighbour, if possible.

I would agree with that too.

Cheers

tony6403

Look on the bright side - one less giant weed.

Davesnave

keystone wrote: »

If that little jibe is directed at me you've misread what I was saying.

I'm sorry if it arrived as a jibe; it left here as an observation.

keystone

Davesnave wrote: »

I'm sorry if it arrived as a jibe; it left here as an observation.

OK sorry then I misunderstood you.

Cheers

macman

keystone wrote: »

Actually yes it is:

"A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence."

It doesn't matter whether the police would actually be interested.

Cheers

Exactly-so the prosecution would have to prove reckless intent. Since this appears to have been done by a clueless or incompetent contractor, that might be tricky. No case to answer m'lud.

keystone

macman wrote: »

Exactly-so the prosecution would have to prove reckless intent. Since this appears to have been done by a clueless or incompetent contractor, that might be tricky. No case to answer m'lud.

No you've emboldened the wrong bit IMO

"A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence."

the "or" separates intended destruction from reckless destruction. The contractor here was reckless and caused the tree to fall down. Simples.

Whether the CPS would find it "tricky" to prove (as whether the police would be interested too) isn't relevant to my argument. In the limit it's still clearly a case of criminal damage and still an offence whether the authorities consider it worth prosecuting that offence or not.

Conversely if the OP decided to sue then it would (as you first suggested) be a civil action. In a civil case the outcome is decided on balance of probablity rather than burden of proof. The balance of probablity here is that the !!!!!! with the chainsaw seriously destabilised the tree and it fell down.

Incidentally criminal damage was originally a common law offence.

Cheers

Shimmyhill

The tree probably caused damage to the fence, sue the tree! If you replanted the tree would it grow, it has to be permanent damage after all

Speak to the neighbour, they may know nothing about it and one assumes the company doing the fencing has insurance for this very reason?

cyclonebri1

The way I see it here is that everyone is a winner.

The op has got rid of a tree that will shade his garden and possibly damage his property, plus he has a shiney new fence for free.

The neighbour will not have his garden/lawn shaded so stuff will grow, the roots wont dry up his plants and his fence won't get distorted as the roots expand.

The obvious solution seems to be by amicable agreement, (if that is at all possible), that the neighbour puts his hands up, removes all trace of said tree, and offers to plant a "growing on" version of whatever tree the OP would prefer.

Suggestions of replacing like with like are not sensible in this case due to the size of the tree involved.:D:D:D

Davesnave

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

The obvious solution seems to be by amicable agreement, (if that is at all possible), that the neighbour puts his hands up, removes all trace of said tree, and offers to plant a "growing on" version of whatever tree the OP would prefer.

Exactly. The neighbour might not need to do anything on the removal side if they hired a decent contractor, because the contractor would accept responsibility and clear up.

However, as the OP hasn't come back yet, we have no idea about their usual relationship with the neighbour, or where this might be going next.

harveybobbles

Sorry, been busy.

Came home the next day to find the tree was being chopped up and removed at the neighbours cost as it was him who cut the roots in readiness for the people doing the fence.

The tree porvided a nice shaded area as the garden is quite big. The chickens used to love it under there too - thats where they lay their eggs!