Compensation from tree surgeon

Gavin83

Your neighbour is an idiot. They'll have reduced the value of their property (and yours for that matter) by more than the compensation they're asking for. It's the very definition of making a point for the sake of it.

Who's paying for the mediation?

In your position I'd do one of two things depending on how much I could be bothered to fight. I'd either offer them £600 (half their offer) to go away or I'd scrap the mediation (unless they're paying) and tell them to take me to court. It would likely be a messy court case and you might potentially lose but even if you did you'd have way more ammo against the tree surgeon.

Mickey666

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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. 

I get your point, but it's going to be a difficult because legal boundaries can, and do, move.  There are umpteen cases where a fence has been moved off a boundary, triggering a dispute over the location of the boundary.  With no clear evidence wither way a 'boundary surveyor' can be appointed to determine the boundary and in many cases the re-positioned fence is declared to be the legal boundary.  Sounds outrageous, I know, but check out  https://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=4 for some amazing disputes.

Wotsit123

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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).  

Mediation costs would be split both ways but neighbour says a number might be necessary as we haven’t arrived at compromise in months. It’s like they try any way they can to make sure we suffer financially. Initial claim for over 6k for after I told them that due to me being on mat leave we are down to one wage and haven’t really got the means to compensate them financially. 

Wotsit123

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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. 

Previous owners told us they moved it but we already had a surveyor round who said that due to lack of aerial photo evidence (because of bushy conifers), he can’t produce any reports in our favour despite written statement from previous neighbour. 

Wotsit123

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. 

According to police we committed the offence as we hired the tree surgeon, they didn’t even want to speak to him. 

Wotsit123

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.

That’s neighbours argument for damage - they were cut to brown wood and therefore won’t regrow. But neighbour can’t even see it from their garden, they only see their side with bushy branches . 

elsien

Wotsit123 said:

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. 

According to police we committed the offence as we hired the tree surgeon, they didn’t even want to speak to him. 

Given that the police's knowledge of law can be a little hazy at times, have you checked out whether their assertions about criminal damage and liability are correct. Do you have legal cover on your insurance? 

Wotsit123

elsien said:

Wotsit123 said:

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. 

According to police we committed the offence as we hired the tree surgeon, they didn’t even want to speak to him. 

Given that the police's knowledge of law can be a little hazy at times, have you checked out whether their assertions about criminal damage and liability are correct. Do you have legal cover on your insurance? 

Yes, already check with another policeman. Our insurance wouldn’t cover any of it unfortunately, we asked. 

Nearlyold

Second concrete post in from the left has what looks like a wooden fence post behind it, could that be part of the original fence line or is it for something else?

Mickey666

Wotsit123 said:

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. 

According to police we committed the offence as we hired the tree surgeon, they didn’t even want to speak to him. 

Surely it's more correct to say you may be responsible for the (alleged) cutting back too far because the TS was acting as your agent, but it can't be correct to say you 'committed' the offence.  Indeed, if your instruction was to only cut back to the fence line then how can you even be 'responsible' if the TS didn't follow your instructions?

Might be difficult to prove, what with it all probably being word of mouth and not written downs as a detailed specification of work, but you get the principle of the argument?

Having said all that, it seems to me that the biggest issue in this whole dispute is that it has gone on for five months with no progress.  Both sides are probably well-entrenched, stubborn, frustrated and with no acceptable resolution in sight.  Given that  a professional mediator is already involved, I doubt there's anything this forum can suggest that hasn't already been thought about.  A difficult situation