Compensation from tree surgeon

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Wotsit123 said:

This is what the conifers look like after cutting, they are already growing so close to fence and pushing on it so it bows. 

Looks like they've been cut back to the line at the top of the fence and then they've been cut a bit too far in as the tree surgeon went up.

I don't get exactly what your neighbour is claiming compensation for though? The difference in appearance would be minimal. 

Your neighbours could only claim actual loses in small claims which they don't appear to have suffered, if they did cut down the trees completely and replace them I'd be amazed if they were awarded £1200 to replace a few trees based on them being cut back slightly too far, particularly as they aren't mitigating their losses.  

Beyond that, as far as I understand, they are looking a large legal expenses to claim compensation. 

Unclear who pays for this mediation but I wouldn't be in your situation. 

Only you know your neighbours so if they are the type to spend £100,000 chasing this I'd offer them £500 (which is about £499 more than they are due IMHO), if they are bluffing and looking for some easy money I'd be inclined to tell them you are done until they start legal proceedings.

As much as I love trees I think the whole lot should be cut down and replaced with a single mature tree, might take a few years but would eventually look so much better. 

As an aside you might want to Google Garden Law and post there plus you need advice on what it would cost if they do take legal action. 

Just to add if you do get an official ruling to pay compensation you can issue small claims against the tree surgeon to recover your loses (up to a certain amount).  

davidmcn

Wotsit123 said:

Boundary was moved years ago by 2 feet because of growing conifers but it wasn’t us but previous owners.

As in just shifting the fence? Or changing the legal boundary at the Land Registry?

Mickey666

Wotsit123 said:

Tree surgeon says it wasn’t him, that he cut only to fence but it’s not true.

TBH, that's probably your way out as it will be the neighbour's word against yours and the tree surgeon.

You can clearly state what you instructed the TS to do but you're not the expert so you left it to them.  Perfectly reasonable.

TS is saying he didn't cut beyond the fence.  If there is no evidence to suggest otherwise then it's possible someone else cut them back beyond the fence . . . could be the neighbour who did it out of spite?  Who knows?  Their words against yours and no proof either way.

Not sure how the court would decide when there is such a lack of evidence, but it will up to your neighbour to take legal action.

It's a pity you've agreed to mediation, especially at £200 a session.  Who is paying for each session - you, or is it being split with the neighbour?  Is the TS involved in the mediation meetings?

IvanOpinion

Looking at the height of those I would check local bylaws and your deeds etc.  For example both in our bylaws and in the deeds we are not allowed any tree higher than 30ft and it is made clear that if it exceeds this height then the entire tree can be taken down.

I would claim damage from the neighbour for your fence.  About £1200 worth seems about right.

peter_the_piper

Biggest problem I see is that the Leylandii will now always be bare wood on the OP's side as Leylandii do not regrow from brown wood. Really the neighbour should have kept them under control as they have got out of control.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

peter_the_piper said:

Biggest problem I see is that the Leylandii will now always be bare wood on the OP's side as Leylandii do not regrow from brown wood. Really the neighbour should have kept them under control as they have got out of control.

I think this is the neighbours problem, which they would have had anyway, they've just got lucky that the trees have been apparently cut back slightly too far. 

OP reading that the boundary fence was moved (presumably inwards to your garden), how do you know this and is there any clear indication from the layout of the properties and the fences? 

Cutting back past the boundary is an issue but if you can show the fence is not the boundary and it is in fact two feet over the neighbours don't have any claim either way. 

David713

davidmcn said:

Where's the criminal intent required to constitute criminal damage?

There is no need to have criminal intent. All that is needed is for damage to have occurred and the act that did the damage being reckless and I would have thought that a court would agree that a professional tree surgeon cutting back branches 2 feet into neighbouring property is reckless.

Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

David713 said:

davidmcn said:

Where's the criminal intent required to constitute criminal damage?

There is no need to have criminal intent. All that is needed is for damage to have occurred and the act that did the damage being reckless and I would have thought that a court would agree that a professional tree surgeon cutting back branches 2 feet into neighbouring property is reckless.

Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence.

Agreed but who would have committed the offence, the OP or the surgeon? 

If it's the surgeon then the criminal aspect of this has nothing to do with the OP. 

Mickey666

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

David713 said:

davidmcn said:

Where's the criminal intent required to constitute criminal damage?

There is no need to have criminal intent. All that is needed is for damage to have occurred and the act that did the damage being reckless and I would have thought that a court would agree that a professional tree surgeon cutting back branches 2 feet into neighbouring property is reckless.

Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence.

Agreed but who would have committed the offence, the OP or the surgeon? 

If it's the surgeon then the criminal aspect of this has nothing to do with the OP. 

Well it wasn't the OP because they hired the TS and they say it wasn't them, so where's the proof of who dun it?

davidmcn

Any David713 said:

davidmcn said:

Where's the criminal intent required to constitute criminal damage?

There is no need to have criminal intent. All that is needed is for damage to have occurred and the act that did the damage being reckless and I would have thought that a court would agree that a professional tree surgeon cutting back branches 2 feet into neighbouring property is reckless.

Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence.

Surely the lawful excuse is that they were in the course of carrying out tree surgery? Otherwise it would suggest tree surgeons are at risk of gaining a criminal record merely because they've accidentally strayed over a boundary line (and it sounds like there may be some doubt about where the boundary is anyway). It doesn't seem relevant to the OP's situation anyway given the cops aren't interested.