Compensation from tree surgeon

davidmcn

Wotsit123 said:

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.

What the police think has got absolutely nothing to do with any civil liability between you and your neighbour.

Wotsit123

Nearlyold said:

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?

Yes, that’s part of it but the rest was just wire fencing rather than proper panels/posts and was right up to conifers. The whole thing was apparently an overgrown jungle when previous owners moved in so they just took the easy option of putting the new fence where they could due to conifer and their roots. 

Wotsit123

Mickey666 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. 

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

I agree to certain extent, they want money and we don’t see any need to give them money. They already said they are planning to buy more leylandii to go across the whole boundary and cover any gaps. 

My original question was actually about claiming off the tree surgeon and how to go about doing that but no one seems to be able to help with it. 

Ectophile

It strikes me that there all sorts of ways to defend yourself, and/or be a nuisance to the neighbour.

Argue that the fence isn't the boundary.  It was only moved because the hedge was pushing it over.  As such, your boundary is really immediately adjacent to the hedge, so you have a right to prune back anything pointing in your direction.  Invite them to produce evidence that the fence is really the boundary.

And if the hedge continues to damage the fence, you'll have to sue them for the cost of replacing it.

Make a complaint to the council about their hedge.  It is a nuisance under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, part 8 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/38/part/8 . Ask for the offending hedge to be cut down to no more than 2 metres above gound level.

davidmcn

Wotsit123 said:

Mickey666 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. 

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

My original question was actually about claiming off the tree surgeon and how to go about doing that but no one seems to be able to help with it. 

Like I said, you've got no grounds (or need) to make a claim until you've actually suffered a loss. If and when your neighbours come up with a valid claim against you, then I suppose that's something you might be able to seek reimbursement for.

Jenni_D

Gavin83 said:

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.

Indeed ... this is officially a neighbour dispute and needs to be declared should either of you come to sell.

Sounds like the neighbour is a nightmare bully who's used to getting their own way. Perhaps they needs someone to stand up to them - but if your financial position is not so sound (mat leave) I can understand why you'd have cause for concern.

Keep_pedalling

Wotsit123 said:

Mickey666 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. 

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

I agree to certain extent, they want money and we don’t see any need to give them money. They already said they are planning to buy more leylandii to go across the whole boundary and cover any gaps. 

My original question was actually about claiming off the tree surgeon and how to go about doing that but no one seems to be able to help with it. 

You should certainly not give them money so they can buy more of those awful trees. It seems that though more accident than judgement the tree surgeon did not overstep the boundary because the fence is in the wrong place. Boundary disputes in England and Wales are tricky because the boundary shown on the title plan does not have the scale drawn to a level of accuracy to determine the exact location of the boundary but if you don’t already have a copy I would download one from the land registry.

https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry

I would forget about the TS your problem is your anti- social neighbour, who is threatening to put up more of these monstrosities. I would, via a solicitor, write to them telling them them that  that the trees have been trimmed to the border which you believe is their side of the fence line, and that you were within your rights to trim the tree back to that level and that you will therefore not be offering any sort of compensation.

Further more, your should say that if they fail to trim back the tree (and any subsequently planted trees) to a reasonable height, you will not only continuities to trim the branches hard to the border but you will also remove any roots from those trees that extend into your lawn.
https://www.leylandii.com/leylandii-law/

sheramber

Has the tree surgeon cut the branches back  to the trunk rather than leaving a stump sticking out if he cut exactly at the boundary line.?

However, it is not clear how far back he cut them.
To the original wire boundary or beyond that?
 How did you define the boundary to him?  To the fence or to the original wire boundary?

steampowered

I would be asking the neighbour to pay you compensation for damage to your fence.

You could also ask your neighbour to pay you compensation for the trees interfering with enjoyment of your own property under the law of nuisance, and to pay the tree surgeon's invoice.

I would not be paying them a single penny. I do not see why the tree surgeon would either.

I don't understand why you are engaging in mediation. The answer to your neighbour is simply "no, I am not paying you a penny. Take care of your own damn trees". 

Wotsit123

davidmcn said:

Wotsit123 said:

Mickey666 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. 

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

My original question was actually about claiming off the tree surgeon and how to go about doing that but no one seems to be able to help with it. 

Like I said, you've got no grounds (or need) to make a claim until you've actually suffered a loss. If and when your neighbours come up with a valid claim against you, then I suppose that's something you might be able to seek reimbursement for.

Thanks, we’re only considering a claim if we end up having to pay the neighbour compensation.