Neighbour has cut down 7 of my trees!

Davesnave

trailingspouse wrote: »

Well that little joke of mine fell flat, didn't it.
'Act of God' is a thing. Check your own insurance policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God

No, I got it, but as you know, it's not applicable here and my joke was reflective of that.

No offence intended.

Ozzuk

Just because their insurer disputes liability doesn't mean the Church isn't liable. For sure talk to your insurer (who may refuse to take this on as it started before you took out the policy), you might also want to take paid legal advice. You could also try getting some rectification quotes, maybe price up 10 foot range trees and point out the comprimise (cost hundreds instead of thousands per tree), letter before action then small claims (MCOL), but I think you're limited to 10k there.

I wouldn't worry about upsetting people, they didn't show that courtesy when hacking your garden to pieces.

Davesnave

Ozzuk wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about upsetting people, they didn't show that courtesy when hacking your garden to pieces.

The church official who arranged this was probably quite naive. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they hired someone known to a member of the congregation to get it done at favourable rates.


In doing this they also laid themselves open to other liabilities. For example, if they didn't check the insurance, they'll have failed to check if there was a waste carriers' licence too. This would make them liable for illegal dumping of waste material.


The OP could legitimately argue that this has already occurred, since the correct procedure is to offer back the cut material to its owner, not dump it on their property. The OP wasn't asked and didn't have to accept the waste, so it was fly-tipped, and fly tipping is a criminal, not a civil offence. The police wouldn't relish being involved, but they could be.

fezster

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

- 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...

I don't agree that a person should have to give up their legal rights because of the threat of retaliation. This may have been offered as practical advice, but it could equally be countered with saying that the good people who attend the church would be able to draw their own conclusions on who has been wronged in this situation.

EachPenny wrote: »

Unless your insurance legal advisor tells you otherwise, your claim should be against the church not the contractor. The chances are the contractor will 'vanish' if you try to make a claim against them.

Keep it clear and simple. The church are responsible, they need to cover your reasonable costs in repairing the damage. (their insurer denying liability is irrelevant)

Exactly. Forget what the church's insurance company have told you. It's their job to get out of paying any claim. Instruct your own solicitor (as said, preferably using your home insurance legal cover, otherwise pay for somebody privately). They will pursue YOUR interests and ensure the correct person(s) are held liable for the damage.

Rosemary7391

fezster wrote: »

Exactly. Forget what the church's insurance company have told you. It's their job to get out of paying any claim. Instruct your own solicitor (as said, preferably using your home insurance legal cover, otherwise pay for somebody privately). They will pursue YOUR interests and ensure the correct person(s) are held liable for the damage.

It's entirely possible that the insurance company think that they're not liable for reasons that don't get the church off the hook as well. I don't see why the church wouldn't be liable - but maybe they're waiting for their next trustee meeting to discuss the next steps. I'm not overly familiar with how pentecostal churches organise themselves.

robatwork

ljbnotts wrote: »

Its a Pentecostal Church.

I'm sure it wasn't done deliberately, although i do think it was a cash in hand type job done as a favor. (the Minister did say as much to me when i first went round) We have all agreed we want to keep good neighbourly relations but we're just at a loss as to how move forward.

You need to get this straight in your mind, as you will be entering the world of legal disputes soon. It was done deliberately. Nobody accidentally cut 7 of your trees down.

As to whether someone on the contractor's team was told to do this by the minister, or their boss, or just took it upon themselves to do it is unknown to you. And it doesn't really matter. They did it deliberately. And negligently.

I understand you want to keep things polite with your neighbour, but polite can be conflated with being a pushover. You should send/deliver a letter stating your position and what you expect to be done (ie. put back to how you were before the damage, with mature trees that block the view and healthy bamboo). Invite them to write to you letting you know their plan of action - say you hope to sort this out without resorting to legal action if possible, and you hope to remain on good terms with them.

paddy's_mum

In your shoes, I would be seriously considering going to the local newspaper myself!

What faith or denomination in this day and age would relish being revealed as contentedly walking roughshod over the clear rights of a fellow citizen?

Kind of hard to take the moral highground when you are denying your neighbour any remedy for your own wrongdoing, don't you think?! :A

Wassa123

I once read an article about a very similar situation.

The owner gave the neighbours permission to trim the trees.
The neighbours stumped the trees completely.

There was no "criminal damage" as permission to cut the tree was given, but the dispute was over the amount of cutting that was given so there wasn't much come back anywhere.


Personally, if the neighbours had asked permission to trim/cut any trees or hedges I'd refuse and say I'll get it done myself for them, as that avoids any of this mess.

WeAreGhosts

Probably this one ...?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5485682/Woman-arrives-home-to-find-neighbours-have-cut-down-garden-trees.html

I learnt the hard way, too. Neighbour told me he'd "trim" a tree, but actually cut masses of it, which was not what was agreed.
No criminal damage, though, according to police, because I'd let him touch my property.

melb

I would speak to your insurers' legal team and hopefully they wold speak to the church's legal team hopefully meaning that civil relations can be maintained by yourselves and the church next door.

i think it is outrageous personally - also it sounds like they probably had to come on your land to cut them down to the ground!