TPO questions

Lulu58

One of our neighbours has a very large tree in his garden which has TPO.

Can anyone tell me what his legal responsibilities are, if any, in terms of ensuring the tree is properly looked after.  For example, does he have to get the tree inspected every year for disease, damaged branches etc.

Also, does he have to have insurance for damage caused by the tree should falling branches damage nearby properties or the tree comes down in a storm?

user1977

He doesn't need to have insurance at all, and unless damage is caused by his negligence he's not going to be liable anyway.

No special need to "look after" the tree any more than if there wasn't a TPO in place - the only difference is he'd need to get permission to carry out works to it.

Lulu58

user1977 said:

He doesn't need to have insurance at all, and unless damage is caused by his negligence he's not going to be liable anyway.

No special need to "look after" the tree any more than if there wasn't a TPO in place - the only difference is he'd need to get permission to carry out works to it.

The tree is in a heavily built up area.  Last year or the year before following heavy snowfall several massive branches came crashing down and landed very close to his house and a neighbor's.  It was terrifying.  Would that be classed a negligence?

Given the location, I don't understand why he wouldn't have to ensure the tree was safe, nor why he wouldn't have to have insurance.  If the tree came down it could wipe out several houses and potentially kill people.

Section62

Lulu58 said:

The tree is in a heavily built up area.  Last year or the year before following heavy snowfall several massive branches came crashing down and landed very close to his house and a neighbor's.  It was terrifying.  Would that be classed a negligence?

Given the location, I don't understand why he wouldn't have to ensure the tree was safe, nor why he wouldn't have to have insurance.  If the tree came down it could wipe out several houses and potentially kill people.

How would insurance stop that happening?

user1977 is correct - the TPO doesn't fundamentally change what is required of a tree owner compared to a non-TPO tree, the difference is almost exclusively in terms of getting consent for various types of work.

user1977

Lulu58 said:

user1977 said:

He doesn't need to have insurance at all, and unless damage is caused by his negligence he's not going to be liable anyway.

No special need to "look after" the tree any more than if there wasn't a TPO in place - the only difference is he'd need to get permission to carry out works to it.

Given the location, I don't understand why he wouldn't have to ensure the tree was safe, nor why he wouldn't have to have insurance.  If the tree came down it could wipe out several houses and potentially kill people.

What law do you think might make insurance compulsory? There's no general need for householders to have any sort of insurance (though in practice they obviously tend to regard it as a good idea, and mortgage lenders will require it). Do you actually know he doesn't have insurance, as that would be fairly unusual? You're not entitled to know one way or another anyway.

Lulu58

Section62 said:

Lulu58 said:

  If the tree came down it could wipe out several houses and potentially kill people.

How would insurance stop that happening?

I worded my question poorly with hindsight. We are just concerned that in the event of an incident (hopefully not death!) we would have to rely on our insurance if our neighbour doesn't have any. It started a train of thought as to whether home owners with TPO trees have to undertake to get the tree checked etc as per my original email.

Lulu58

user1977 said:

What law do you think might make insurance compulsory? There's no general need for householders to have any sort of insurance (though in practice they obviously tend to regard it as a good idea, and mortgage lenders will require it). Do you actually know he doesn't have insurance, as that would be fairly unusual? You're not entitled to know one way or another anyway.

We wondered if you had to sign something when you purchased a property with TPO tree/s, particularly very large trees in a built up area.

We have no idea whether our neighbour has insurance or not.

Section62

Lulu58 said:

Section62 said:

Lulu58 said:

  If the tree came down it could wipe out several houses and potentially kill people.

How would insurance stop that happening?

I worded my question poorly with hindsight. We are just concerned that in the event of an incident (hopefully not death!) we would have to rely on our insurance if our neighbour doesn't have any. It started a train of thought as to whether home owners with TPO trees have to undertake to get the tree checked etc as per my original email.

Yes, that gets to the heart of the matter.  Regardless of whether or not a tree has a TPO the risk of it falling down remains broadly the same. (arguably a TPO tree might get looked after better because of external oversight)

If a tree does fall down then anyone financial affected has a range of options available to restore them to the position they were in prior to the incident.  Claiming on the tree-owner's insurance (if any) is only one of the options available.

All owners of large trees (with or without TPOs) would be advised to get them periodically checked by a competent person - because in the event of some unfortunate happening, the owner would have some defence that they had employed the services of a competent person to help them manage the tree responsibly, and to lower the risk of the tree causing damage to property or life.  Whilst not exempting them from a negligence claim, positive action might go some way towards reducing liability.

But there is no legal compulsion (yet) on members of the public to get periodic inspection of their trees.

doodling

Hi,

Your neighbour is only liable for anything if he is negligent.  Owning a big tree is not being negligent, nor is owning a big tree which has previously shed some large branches, although in that case it might be negligent to not have the tree inspected by a tree surgeon afterwards to confirm that no further large falls are expected.

Negligence would be ignoring a large crack in a significantly sized bough or ignoring the tree becoming diseased and dying.

In general, whilst it is difficult to speculate without more detail, if the owner had a tree surgeon look at it every 1-5 years (depending on the likelihood that its health has changed since its last inspection) and promptly got the tree attended to if it showed signs of distress then they are unlikely to have any responsibility if it subsequently killed someone or damaged their property.

Note that if they are not negligent then their insurers will not pay out.  The same principle would apply if someone drove into the side of your house because their car was damaged when it was struck by lightening.  Everyone is at risk from the unpredictable and the only answer is to have your own insurance, if it is not the other party's fault then their insurance won't pay up.

user1977

Lulu58 said:

Section62 said:

Lulu58 said:

  If the tree came down it could wipe out several houses and potentially kill people.

How would insurance stop that happening?

We are just concerned that in the event of an incident (hopefully not death!) we would have to rely on our insurance if our neighbour doesn't have any. 

Nothing wrong with relying on your insurance - that's what it's there for. And you can still sue someone who's liable, even if they don't have insurance. Just a risk that they might not have as much cash as an insurance company.

Lulu58

All owners of large trees (with or without TPOs) would be advised to get them periodically checked by a competent person - because in the event of some unfortunate happening, the owner would have some defence that they had employed the services of a competent person to help them manage the tree responsibly, and to lower the risk of the tree causing damage to property or life.  Whilst not exempting them from a negligence claim, positive action might go some way towards reducing liability.

But there is no legal compulsion (yet) on members of the public to get periodic inspection of their trees.

You've raised an interesting point, Section 62 regarding liability etc. Next time I bump into my neighbour I might try and speak to him about the tree.