Another dreaded conifer question!

BornAtTheRightTime

Whilst it might seem a good opportunity right now to trim the roots back (with or without your neighbour's support), your future neighbour may not be any more responsible when the roots inevitably re-grow. And you won't have the leverage of a dispute threat holding up their sale to encourage them to action. In fact you'll be wondering about the wisdom of a dispute with your neighbours who aren't going anywhere.

Do as Davesnave's post #7 says and get them to remove the trees now.

Davesnave

I don't think it will be an official dispute if the matter is reported to the council and they do nothing, which is what I'd expect in this case.

It will probably only become a recognised dispute if a solicitor is involved, or an small claim is made, but solicitors and small claims cost, so I'd go for the approach I suggested earlier and see what happens.

sobie

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

BTW You are best off pre-empting that shirty postman hoping for a payout and getting an official letter in to the Post Office saying that:

- you are concerned about the state of the path for access and making it VERY plain its the neighbours fault and not yours

- you understand the postman has "expressed concern and is not happy about walking up your path because of these neighbours trees" and, in order to avoid this, you hereby refuse permission for the postman to walk up your garden path and will be collecting your mail yourself. WORD THIS LETTER VERY CAREFULLY.

You don't need a greedy wotname like said postman deciding he could do with a payout and making sure he doesn't take responsibility for carefully watching his own feet as he uses them to walk up the path. He may just be threatening (aiming for the message to get back to you...as it has) OR he may start feeling a bit short of money and trying to be careless at your expense. Don't take the risk that he might be greedy and broke.

Or..you could always put up a lockable garden gate or other obstacle preventing him walking on this path and then he cant do so anyway even if he is so determined to have a payout that he tries hard to.

:mad: Thats beyond unbelievable!!!!

newbutold

sobie wrote: »

:mad: Thats beyond unbelievable!!!!

Why?


.

moneyistooshorttomention

newbutold wrote: »

Why?


.

I am assuming that anyone (including postmen) are capable of watching where they are going. Presumably, we are all taught that as children. I remember my parents saying "Watch where you are going" enough times that I got the message and realised it was up to me to do so.

By the sheer fact of saying that he finds the path dangerous, that postman has acknowledged that it is so and has put the onus on himself to take self-responsibility for watching his feet that bit more than normal. If he has an accident, knowing he specifically needs to watch out a bit more, then it would be his fault. Therefore logic says that "If he has an accident after realising that, then that means he has caused the accident himself"...but you do get some people who cause themselves a problem and then decide to get shirty about it.

Equivalent situation to someone knowing a fire will burn them if they put their hand into it, but doing so anyway.

BornAtTheRightTime

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

If he has an accident, knowing he specifically needs to watch out a bit more, then it would be his fault.

I disagree. We all know icy paths need extra care and yet we still slip up occasionally. To err is human and all that.

sobie

newbutold wrote: »

Why?


.

Its infuriating and disgusting for moneyistooshorttomention to automatically assume that the postman is being "Shirty, Greedy, careless, broke, looking for a payout" when the postman is clearly just doing his job.

1) The op has clearly stated that they are aware that the path is dangerous. .

2) The op has not spoken to the postman. the neighbour the other side has - who knows whats going on here, maybe this neighbour is fed up with the state of the OPs front garden, and is making up stories to scare the OP into tiding their garden?

3) It is the responisbility of the OP to ensure the safety of anyone on their property.

4) It is the responsibility for the postperson to make their manager aware of any risks to their health and safety. They risk getting a writen warning if they don't. should the Postman have a nasty fall, he risks lossing his job if he is off sick.

5) What if this postman is covered by another postman who may not have done the round before, and will not be aware of the problems and then they have a nasty fall? Or the health and safety of ANY person who uses the path.

Then moneyistooshorttomention goes onto say that the OP should purposely block the pathway!!

SO yes I stand by my statement, moneyistooshorttomentions post is unbelievable.

:mad:

sobie

OP, are you certain it is the roots of the conifers and not a nearby broadleaf tree/ shrub thats lifting the slabs?

Do you know what the species of the conifer is? Leylandii, Chamaecyparis, Thuja etc.
If its leylandii you'll definately have more cause for concern.

How tall/ wide are the conifers?

I'll be totally honest with you, its highly unlikely that the roots of fairly recently planted slow growing conifers would be strong enough to lift slabs that are laid on adequate foundations. Conifer roots tend to be fiberous rather than strong and thick (like broadleaf trees). Which is one of the reasons slow growing conifer species are so sucessfully grown in small pots without repotting for many years.

Is it possible to post a few pictures of the conifers, slabs and a close up of the roots doing the damage. You need to be certain of your facts before you take things further.