Neighbour has cut down 7 of my trees!

owen_money

ljbnotts wrote: »

We are also asking for some compensation due to the stress of the ongoing situation (3 months and counting) and loss of privacy to our garden.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

moneyistooshorttomention

trailingspouse wrote: »

Just because the contractor isn't insured doesn't mean he's not liable. You take out insurance (or at least you should do) to cover you for your liabilities - but the liabilities still stand even if you don't have the insurance. The simplest solution would be for you to have the work carried out, then sue the contractor for the cost through the small claims court. But at the end of the day, if he can't afford to pay you back, then he can't afford to pay you back - you need to decide if it's worth the effort. Don't be fobbed off by them saying you should sue the workman - you sue them, they can then sue him to recover their costs (again, if they think it's worth the effort - but that's not your problem).

When I had loads of renovation work done on my house - part of getting worried about the standard of work done by the tradespeople I had in was that I checked the position if they damaged my house in some way.

Basically - if the decorator that painted my kitchen (just after my new kitchen was put in) had put their foot through my new worksurface - it would have been down to them (or, to be more exact, their insurance company).

I also remember that I had intended to have one particular workman do a quick check on my roof - but the second I realised he didn't have this £1 million or so insurance cover tradespeople should have (in fact didnt have any at all) - I aborted that plan. Reason being any damage he did would have been down to him personally to pay for - and I didn't rate the chances of getting any money he owed me out of him.

Hence - I assume that the same insurance cover tradespeople are supposed to take out also covers them for dealing with any damage they do to neighbours property. I'd be surprised if their insurance company wouldnt pay up for damage several inches the neighbours side of a wall - when they would have to pay up for damage a few inches my side of a wall.

EachPenny

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Would it not be possible for the OP to claim against both the neighbour and the contractor, and let the court figure out liability?

My view would be the claim is against the church and only the church. They are who the OP had an agreement with, and the OP had no such agreement with the contractor. (it would be different if the OP had jointly employed the contractor)

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

I don't think it makes any legal difference that your neighbour is a church btw. Maybe a practical difference in that you're likely dealing with a committee who have to have meetings etc about everything so that might delay their responses. But as a landowner their legal responsibility should be the same as a normal neighbour.

I think it does make a difference in the sense that the church should have identified a 'responsible person' who is familiar with the risks and requirements when carrying out work. That responsible person should also have responsibilities when it comes to Health and Safety - and when it comes to appointing a contractor that would extend to making sure they had appropriate insurance cover for the work involved.

EachPenny

Davesnave wrote: »

Are you saying the contractor employed God?

It would be quite a brave thing to do to sack God, and offer to give his name and address to angry householders.

sevenhills

ljbnotts wrote: »

In May 2018 our neighbour came round and said they wanted to trim the overhanging leylandi branches on their side. They said they had hired a contractor and would trim the branches to Lampost height. (They are mature tall trees ). We agreed this would be ok. They asked if we wanted the branches and we said no.

In August 2018 when we were on holiday the work was carried out. Except the contractors have stumped 7 of our trees and trimmed over the boundary line to the trunk, so there are no branches or twigs remaining, They then proceeded to dump the branches over the fence onto 2 established bamboo trees that have killed them.

Our neighbour is a Church.

I cannot believe that a contractor would stump 7 trees that were only meant to be trimmed. Surely there would be an agreed price for the work? Trimming vs stumping trees would be a very different quote.
You added at the end, that your neighbour is a church, I know churchwardens that look after the land can be grump old men; but peraps if you take your concerns directly to the church?

Rosemary7391

EachPenny wrote: »

Personally I think they are wrong to say you should pursue a complaint with the contractors, but I agree with the bit in bold because as you say:-

In terms of standard insurance cover, no insurer is going to accept liability for something which was caused through avoidable errors (some might argue negligence) on the part of the insured.

It might be forgivable for a normal householder not to think about checking their contractor's insurance cover, but an organisation like a church should do this as a matter of routine.

Agreed, but like any organisation mistakes get made I suppose it might be possible for the trustee(s) concerned to be individually liable if the bold is true..? I think most churches are arranged as charities so it would be charity law that is applicable. Although surely no more liable than the contractor..?

Rosemary7391

sevenhills wrote: »

I cannot believe that a contractor would stump 7 trees that were only meant to be trimmed. Surely there would be an agreed price for the work? Trimming vs stumping trees would be a very different quote.
You added at the end, that your neighbour is a church, I know churchwardens that look after the land can be grump old men; but peraps if you take your concerns directly to the church?

It might be worth the OP clarifying what form and with whom their conversations with the church have been (and what sort of church), but from what they've said it does sound like they've been talking to "the church" (ie a representative of the decision making body of the church).

Rosemary7391

EachPenny wrote: »

My view would be the claim is against the church and only the church. They are who the OP had an agreement with, and the OP had no such agreement with the contractor. (it would be different if the OP had jointly employed the contractor)

Fair enough. That does make sense.

EachPenny wrote: »

I think it does make a difference in the sense that the church should have identified a 'responsible person' who is familiar with the risks and requirements when carrying out work. That responsible person should also have responsibilities when it comes to Health and Safety - and when it comes to appointing a contractor that would extend to making sure they had appropriate insurance cover for the work involved.

Hm, not sure... they almost certainly have those responsibilities to their governing body, and employees/volunteers, but does that change the responsibility to the neighbour? Would it make them liable where in exactly the same situation an individual landowner would not be?


I think you're right that the church is responsible btw. I'm just being too academic in trying to unpick it far too precisely

fezster

Hopefully you have legal cover on your home insurance. Consult them and take it from there. IMO, you will sue your neighbour and they will in turn sue their contractor. If the contractor cannot pay, that is not your concern. Your neighbour is liable to you.

I am not a legal expert, but basing this on past experience of similar situations.

moneyistooshorttomention

Admits I'm intrigued as to what church it is next door exactly and just who "God's representative on Earth" has been in this instance....:cool:

At a practical level - before the OP "goes off on one" determined to exact revenge I think it would be worth bearing two different points in mind:

- what conclusions any stranger draws as to who is "in the right" if they know one household has one or more leylandii in their garden (particularly if they are the ones that planted them). It's basically regarded in a not very positive light to be a leylandii planter...

- I don't know what size this church is - but that probably means OP would be p**ing off rather a noticeable number of people (all those attending and their friends and relatives and any local that is/thinks they are "Someone" in the community). That could be a couple of hundred people getting rather annoyed with OP. Personally - I wouldnt fancy those odds....:cool:

Not to forget the local newspaper might love it if the church contacted them and told them about it...