Compensation from tree surgeon

Wotsit123

Mickey666 said:

Wotsit123 said:

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. 

Is the wire still there?   This, together with a supporting statement by the previous owners who erected the fence, would seem to be a big point in your favour.  Indeed, it could kick out any grounds for a claim altogether.

They removed the wire fencing but we have no evidence of it other than previous owners of our house saying that they left it there and no it’s not there. 

Wotsit123

Keep_pedalling 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

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/

Got the titles from land registry but because we’re talking about couple of feet only, they are useless as not very detailed.
Can’t damage roots as it would jeopardise the trees and any action from us which results in killing the trees would make us liable even if done on our side. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

steampowered said:

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". 

It isn't that simple, if trees overhang you can cut them back to the boundary, the cost of this doesn't belong to the tree owner so OP can't claim the tree surgeon's costs.

It's very doubtful the OP has a right to compensation due to reduced enjoyment, as others posted there are avenues with the council for high hedges.

The OP needs to establish where the boundary is, if they haven't cut past it then the neighbour has no claim. 

If they have cut past it whilst the neighbour may still not actually have a claim if the neighbour is the type to go down the legal route on principle and the OP lost then OP could end up with a large legal bill. 

Antagonising the neighbour with counter claims (outside a legal avenue) doesn't help, something concrete to show where the boundary is would be the main step and I certainly wouldn't mention this to the neighbour yet as any evidence such as the old posts may suddenly disappear. 

Wotsit123

sheramber said:

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?

They were not cut to the trunk but still past the fence. I don’t think tree surgeon had bad intentions but wasn’t there with a tape measure but neighbours did take photos with tape measure and sent to police. Tree surgeon was just told to cut to the fence, we didn’t discuss boundaries. 

Wotsit123

steampowered said:

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". 

Fence is still standing and probably has a few more years in it so hard to prove damage. 

Mediation is because we agreed with police that keep engaging in communication with them, we don’t want for it to look like we’re not cooperating. 

No compensation would be due to us through not enjoying garden although conifers do affect it. It’s not so straightforward with hedges, our council charges £500 just to investigate overgrown hedge but best case would get them to cut it to around 7m as they have special formulas for calculating hedge height and that’s what we got from it. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Wotsit123 said:

sheramber said:

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?

They were not cut to the trunk but still past the fence. I don’t think tree surgeon had bad intentions but wasn’t there with a tape measure but neighbours did take photos with tape measure and sent to police. Tree surgeon was just told to cut to the fence, we didn’t discuss boundaries. 

So reading back you have a written statement from the previous owner to say the old fence was right up against the trees and they put a new fence up inside their garden?

If they have any, would the previous owner be willing to give you any photos of their garden showing the old wire fence.

Snap some photos of the old posts and any other evidence left of the boundary being further in than the fence, gather what you can and then put it to the neighbour in writing stating your stance is the actual boundary between the properties is not the fence and you believe the trees have been cut to the actual boundary.

Regarding the police, the odds of you being prosecuted over this are very small, especially if you have something (texts, emails, etc) to show you employed the tree surgeon to cut back to the boundary.

Keep_pedalling

Wotsit123 said:

Keep_pedalling 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

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/

Got the titles from land registry but because we’re talking about couple of feet only, they are useless as not very detailed.
Can’t damage roots as it would jeopardise the trees and any action from us which results in killing the trees would make us liable even if done on our side. 

That cuts both ways, they have to prove where the boundary lies to prove your TS cut sections on their side. 

theoretica

You were perfectly within your rights to cut back to the boundary line (wherever that is) so the only matter for any discussion is any cutting beyond that.  From the images it looks to me as though cutting a few inches further out from the trunk would still have left the bare wood the neighbours are complaining about.

steampowered

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If they have cut past it whilst the neighbour may still not actually have a claim if the neighbour is the type to go down the legal route on principle and the OP lost then OP could end up with a large legal bill. 

What claim do you have in mind from the neighbour? 

You can generally only claim through the courts for actual financial loss - what loss has the neighbour suffered as a result of the branches on the tree being a bit shorter than they were?

I don't see how the Op could be liable for a large legal bill. The neighbour is claiming less than £10k. So this would be a small claim. Legal costs are generally not awarded in small claims.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

steampowered said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If they have cut past it whilst the neighbour may still not actually have a claim if the neighbour is the type to go down the legal route on principle and the OP lost then OP could end up with a large legal bill. 

What claim do you have in mind from the neighbour? 

You can generally only claim through the courts for actual financial loss - what loss has the neighbour suffered as a result of the branches on the tree being a bit shorter than they were?

I don't see how the Op could be liable for a large legal bill. The neighbour is claiming less than £10k. So this would be a small claim. Legal costs are generally not awarded in small claims.

I don't think the neighbour has a claim through small claims, as you say they haven't suffered a loss. 

If neighbours can rack up legal bills over bins:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25428801

or repairs:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/dispute-over-4000-repair-bill-racks-up-300000-in-costs/5055447.article

I'm guessing they can over trees? 

Sorry it's the Sun but one over hedges and a boundary:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14373683/lawyer-50k-bill-neighbour-trim-hedge/