Seller cut down listed tree - risk to property?

brazillondon

Thank you for the response AnotherJoe - you seem to be totally right - having spoken to a few others, we're all in agreement that a one foot diameter trunk (which appears to be just about bang on), does not pose any risk to the property. I'm also surprised that it would have a TPO on it. I'm now less concerned about the risk to the property structurally, but that does now leave the legalities...

I'm fully aware I may be over-thinking this, but being a first time buyer - for most part I can only go off what I'm coming across on my own research. I'll try and speak to the relevant council in the morning, but I also wonder if there's a difference between being prosecuted for chopping down a tree without knowing it had a TPO, vs buying a property knowingly inheriting the problem.

My solicitor has informed me that buying the property, will mean I inherit the problem - thus trying to obtain a retention from the vendor. I'm also informed that this could be up to a £20,000 fine, or an uncapped fine through the crown court as mentioned. Can anyone point me to official documents online that would help me with gauging what risk I'm placing myself under by buying the property?

Dan-Dan

Your solicitor is talking balls i think, is it a conveyancing warehouse?

Davesnave

brazillondon wrote: »

Can anyone point me to official documents online that would help me with gauging what risk I'm placing myself under by buying the property?

I'm sure you will have read this:

http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/tree-preservation-orders/how-are-offences-against-a-tree-preservation-order-enforced-including-tree-replacement/

Note that someone who: ‘aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence’.

You did not do any of those things.

There is therefore no chance whatever of you being held liable for the previous owner's actions, or the actions of those employed by him/her.

I think I could probably point you to a better solicitor!

Davesnave

AnotherJoe wrote: »

However, I also find it difficult to believe that a tree 12ft high had a TPO on it unless it was part of a blanket coverage

Back in the days when I lived in a conservation area, the salient measure was a trunk girth of just 10cm.

This did not apply to fruit trees, however, probably because they are subject to very regular pruning work.

Freecall

Sagz wrote: »

It's an odd law that holds the owner of a property responsible and not the individual who carried out the act.

There is such a huge misunderstanding here. The landowner could be responsible for replacing the tree although in this case the tree was so small that it is an irrelevance.

To be found guilty in a criminal court and consequently fined, the LPA would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the OP cut down the tree.

As this is not what happened it is also irrelevant.

If the OP has decided not to go ahead with the purchase then fine but don't blame it on the situation with the poor tree which (as far as we know) never hurt anyone.

RIP

brazillondon

Thank you for the responses all.

There seems to be a strong consensus here that buying a property does not mean that the new landowner suddenly 'inherits' the problem, or is otherwise liable for the tree having been removed.

My solicitor seems confident in believing that we will inherit the problem. This is partly based on the fact that it appears the house seller 'inherited' the problem from the person he bought it from. Apparently the tree was half-cut by the previous owner, but the current owner then went the whole hog and removed it completely. I feel here it could be argued that the seller still committed a crime by fully removing it - where as we are buying the property with the tree already fully removed.

The Town and Country Act appears to make no explicit mention of the fact that a new landover of the property is free from liability. Can anyone help me by providing Gov documentation that answers this? I shall continue to search in the meantime.

That aside, I shall attempt to speak to the local planning authority in the morning to find out more information.

Thanks again all - really appreciate the help.

AdrianC

You could have been liable - at least for showing it had already been cut down before you bought the place. BUT... now that you've drip-fed the rather pertinent info that the vendor is already being prosecuted, that supercedes that theory fairly firmly, since it proves it definitely wasn't you.

You have told your solicitor that bit, right...?

brazillondon

Indeed I have Adrian, in fact it's the solicitor who has brought it to my attention that the council is currently prosecuting, so they are more than aware. Today has been a case of trying to obtain either written confirmation from the council on what the fine will be (where as it now seems such a decision may take months), or get an undertaking from the seller to cover whatever the fine comes to (for which the seller is not happy to commit to, somewhat understandably).

Either way, I'll be talking to the local authority tree officer in the morning who will hopefully be able to provide the reassurance I'm after - and will see if I can get something in the form of documentation from the solicitor which covers the liability being passed onto a buyer of a property.

moneyistooshorttomention

When you refer to your "solicitor" - are they actually a solicitor?

I can't help wondering if you've got some lower-level person than a solicitor working on this purchase - eg some much lower-trained person in a conveyancing firm?

I can't help feeling a genuine"solicitor" (ie the real deal person) would have checked carefully as to whether you could be held liable for something someone else did (ie the previous owner/s). Seems you need to do their checking for them - and ask someone properly qualified to answer legal questions. I would certainly be wanting to read "chapter and verse" for myself - if someone had told me that the law was unfair like that - to check if it was correct. Get that solicitor or "solicitor" to provide you with the law they are getting that idea from...

NB: I may be wrong - but I have a suspicion AdrianC is a solicitor??

Freecall

brazillondon wrote: »

The Town and Country Act appears to make no explicit mention of the fact that a new landover of the property is free from liability. Can anyone help me by providing Gov documentation that answers this?

Free from liability for a crime you did not commit?

You could start with the Magna Carta and work forward from there.

Criminal liability lies with whoever committed the crime, you can't 'inherit' criminal liability.

Check with the council what its tree replacement policy is, get a quote for replacement and ask the vendor to meet that cost.

If you want to be fully covered then you will also need to check what the 'die off' policy is. It will say something like 'trees which die within 3 years of planting shall be replaced with similar species'. You solicitor (who seems to be struggling with this whole process) can then write in an appropriate retention for that period.

As moneyistoshort asked, are you sure that you are being advised by a solicitor? This is pretty basic stuff.