Neighbour has cut down 7 of my trees!

robatwork

Any update, LJB?

ljbnotts

No real update. Just waiting for the Church to respond to our last letter stating what we want rectifying, dates etc. If no further forward we will proceed with legal advice via our insurers.

Randomly the contractors company who the Church employed turned up unannounced on Friday to come and clear the branches from our garden. We refused entry to our property as we have no confidence (faith?!) in this man and we were not notified of this in advance.

He stated that it was one of his employees that carried out the work who he has sacked then changed that to a sub contractor who he will no use longer again. He is keen to avoid going through the Insurance route.He also mentioned that it was a cash in hand job done as a favor. (no surprise there!)

He saw the damage and agreed that the trees had been cut too far back to recover from. He said he had insurance when asked, as we are keen not to have any uninsured workers on our property. In case something serious happens. Ie injury form a tree falling down etc. Although the card he gave and website still have no mention of insurance of any kind. We are doubtful.

Thanks for all your opinions and advice. It is appreciated.

LJB

Doozergirl

My business card doesn't mention insurance. I carry more insurance than most, but it's hardly exciting. My website doesn't even mention it. It's not a legal requirement to carry it, let alone market it.

The person responsible clearly wants to co-operate with you. If you want to see the insurance certificate, ask for it instead of point blank refusing to let them in. If the trees are beyond help then what harm can it really do to clear up?

Davesnave

Insurance is more likely to be mentioned on a tree surgeon's web site or card than it would be with many other businesses, but its absence is still no indication of anything.


I'm close friends with a tree contractor who deals with all kinds of work, including emergencies for the highway authority. He has no web site and probably no card either, as it's not his main income.


I know for a fact he has insurance. No matter how much care he takes, things can go wrong. Indeed, he tells a story not unlike this case, where a lady asked him to remove a line of mature trees at the bottom of her garden. He did this, only to discover that the woman was renting the house and the land/tree owner was very upset at the destruction he'd wrought.

EachPenny

Davesnave wrote: »

I know for a fact he has insurance. No matter how much care he takes, things can go wrong. Indeed, he tells a story not unlike this case, where a lady asked him to remove a line of mature trees at the bottom of her garden. He did this, only to discover that the woman was renting the house and the land/tree owner was very upset at the destruction he'd wrought.

A couple of years back I helped an elderly friend find a contractor to remove a large tree. The company she picked sent through pre-work contractural paperwork which had to be signed and returned.

That included a separate declaration that the tree was owned by the person signing, or that they had authority from the owner for work to be carried out on it, and that they knew of no reason why the work couldn't be lawfully carried out.

At the time I felt it was a little bit OTT, but considered the contractor was probably more reliable than most as they were taking care of such details.

That happened before I joined MSE.... now I completely understand why they did it.

Davesnave

My pal's one of a now rare and elusive breed of people accustomed to doing things on trust. They're still seen occasionally in the countryside, but declining fast.


In the incident mentioned, he was able to placate the land owner to some degree by processing the trunks as stackable pieces to be shipped away and turned into logs, but the incident cost him considerably in lost time.

ljbnotts

Doozergirl wrote: »

My business card doesn't mention insurance. I carry more insurance than most, but it's hardly exciting. My website doesn't even mention it. It's not a legal requirement to carry it, let alone market it.

The person responsible clearly wants to co-operate with you. If you want to see the insurance certificate, ask for it instead of point blank refusing to let them in. If the trees are beyond help then what harm can it really do to clear up?

We are co-operating and with no notice it was not convenient to carry out the removal of the cut branches from August. Apart from the fact that the only access to our back garden is through the house, not sure how he thought he was going to be able to get his machine through the house or the branches.

This is one of the reasons we are trying to deal with the Church, as to remove/grind down anything then the fence will need to be removed. It will most likely fall apart when taken down, so who pays for a new one (we will probably pay for 50%).

We are dealing directly with the Church and not the contractor/sub contractor. This was the first time we have had any contact with him.

The insurance question is very important to us. They never had insurance before (which was confirmed) so we are keen to protect ourselves from any potential issues in the future. The other tree surgeons we have got to quote to rectify the work are fully qualified and insured. From what we have seen it does seem to be pretty standard in this line of work to show you have insurance.

We just want the whole situation sorting out asap. It has gone on for far too long now.


LJB

ljbnotts

Davesnave wrote: »

My pal's one of a now rare and elusive breed of people accustomed to doing things on trust. They're still seen occasionally in the countryside, but declining fast.


In the incident mentioned, he was able to placate the land owner to some degree by processing the trunks as stackable pieces to be shipped away and turned into logs, but the incident cost him considerably in lost time.

I guess the problem with trust is that its a 2 way thing. If they had kept to their agreement (made with the Church who contracted them) in the first place then we wouldn't be in this situation now! Understandably we have no trust in this person, after stumping 7 of our trees and killing the rest of them!

LJB

littlerock

Remind us again why the Church's insurers are denying liability? It sounds like trespass and criminal damage.

DaftyDuck

I can understand why the insurers might deny liability... The policy might not cover such events as trespass and criminal damage, the policy might explicitly rule out actions that were carried out by an insured professional, or the policy might only cover actions on the church premises itself. A hundred other reasons.

None are relevant, as I'm sure you agree.

Liability starts and stops with the neighbour, the church, from the OP's point of view. They are liable. Whether they can defer their own liability.... well, entirely irrelevant to the OP.