Landscaper has damaged neighbours shed

Arunmor

MeteredOut said:

Arunmor said:

If I was the neighbour and the OP had hired an unqualified person to cut down a tree that was already damaging my property I wouldn't be too happy.  All fine if the landscaper takes ownership and sorts the problem or claims against his insurance but real potential for strife if the landscaper doesn't (and has no assets).

See RYLANDS V FLETCHER

Where did you get the idea that that was the case? 

Anyway, because the tree has been growing into the neighbours property, that neighbour had the right to trim any overhang. The OP had no requirement to do anything.

From the opening post "was already growing into the neighbours shed"

Vectis

dearface said:

Thanks for everyone's comments.  Clearly not a standard answer!

Either way, I'm still hoping the landscaper will cover the cost of a shed (they're pretty cheap let's be honest, and there appears to be a dawning realisation on their part that they may be responsible), and should the landscaper fail to adequately compensate then I'll come to an agreement privately with the neighbour.  Good relations with the neighbour is worth a lot more than the relatively miserly cost of a shed.

A sensible response.

Perhaps all those arguing amongst themselves can quieten down now, the op has it sorted.

Common sense seems to be in very short supply these days.