Cut down tree landed on neighbours land

If I were the farmer, I wouldn't allow these fools onto my land either!

Quite apart from the breathtaking arrogance of deliberately felling their very large tree without so much as a "do you mind..." they now want him to give a known idiot access, with the distinct possibility to cause all kinds of other mayhem.

Going on the prior lack of planning or preparation, the decision not to alert farmer or neighbour, let alone seek any kind of permission or agreement, strongly indicates that these people display a huge lack of even the most basic courtesy. (How many garden owners would appreciate next door's prunings being dumped on their own property simply because it's bigger or more convenient or just there?)

I suspect that the farmer's demand for £500 is not intending to blackmail the householder at all - just making it very clear indeed that they cannot use his property as some kind of convenient extension to their garden whenever it suits them. If they do so choose at some point in the future, here is ample warning that there will be repercussions!

This thread is a good example of 'How to antagonise your new Neighbours without even Trying...'

Mb1987 wrote: »

Now next door is furious as he believed it could have landed on his house with kids inside and being friends with the farmer phoned him immediately. Now the farmer is demanding £500 and is keeping the felled wood (or he will take the matter further)

He probably has a log burner and wants the wood for himself.

sevenhills wrote: »

He probably has a log burner and wants the wood for himself.

If he's a farmer, he probably has plenty of wood to feed several households!

The farmer will have to pay someone to remove the tree: he would be unwise and irresponsible to let the idiot tree vandal on his land, and would be liable for any injuries so caused. He probably can't rely on the integrity of the fence in the meantime, so loses grazing. He may well need to repair the fence; I doubt there is no damage.

£500 may be excessive, it may not. Difficult to tell. However, the fact the OP suggests the idiot in question knew what he was doing beggars belief. If the farmer has been told that, and told they want to go on his land and saw their own wood up, I'm not surprised he is pi55ed off!

Apologise. Offer to pay for his chosen professionals to chop the tree up and repair the fence .... and offer him the chopped wood as an apology!

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

How about sending the farmer a letter (Recorded Delivery) and copy kept. In that saying words to the effect of:

"This is to request permission to remove the tree from your land at our expense.

"Otherwise - you are welcome to keep the tree and use the wood in it as you wish and we will make no charge to you for said wood.

"Can you please let us know which of these two options you wish to select by x date (say a fortnight's time)"

***********

Obviously there is no 3rd option of he keeps the tree for wood AND gets £500. It's extremely cheeky of him to expect to be paid for the tree - when he would get the benefit of that wood from it. He hasn't incurred any costs for putting right damage - so what would that £500 be for anyway?

With sending him that letter - then I would be surprised if he didn't realise at that point he'd better stop such a try-on to "have it both ways".

What would be the worst case analysis after all? He goes off to someone (police or a small claims court or whatever) and says "They didn't give me £500 AND the wood from the tree". At that point - you produce the letter that makes it plain you were perfectly willing to remove the tree (but couldnt - because he wouldnt let you onto the land to do so) and they could see for themselves he'd attempted a try-on on you and you were perfectly willing to remove the tree - but he was preventing you doing so.

Take photos of the tree and land - to be able to prove there is no damage you are liable to pay for.

It doesn't affect you one bit to have that tree still lying there on his land - it's not in your way at all and so "no skin off your nose" if he leaves it lying there for evermore (which he wouldn't - as he clearly wants the wood from it).

I'd ask you to try reversing the situation and see whether you feel the same would apply... imagine the farmer cut down a tree which landed in the OP's friend's garden.

The thread would now be full of comments saying the friend should sue the arris off the farmer for 'damage' to their property.

There is a common hypocrisy in the general public of seeing their garden as sacrosanct, but commercial land (e.g. farmland) not being important and being fair game for anyone to use as they wish.

The bit of your post I've highlighted in bold illustrates the tension you get between 'newcomers' and farmers/country people.

The OP says no damage has been done (I find that incredibly hard to believe) and the conclusion as a result is not costs will be incurred by the farmer. A large tree falling onto the ground (especially if dead/rotten) is going to leave hundreds of bits of wood scattered all over the place. Some of the branches will have dug themselves into the ground from the impact, and the work to cut the tree up will do further damage to the grass.

The land is used for grazing by horses. Let's say during the clean up by the friend, a bit of broken tree branch embedded in the ground is missed. One of the horses steps on it and injures its hoof. The farmer then has to pay vet bills, or compensation to the horse's owner. So the clean up will need to be done very carefully, with the farmer checking for themselves that it has been done properly. Any holes, scrapes and ruts will need to be leveled off.

The OP's friend will take the view there is 'no damage', because it is only a field. If the situation were reversed, they would probably be demanding that their lawn was professionally returfed using premium quality turf, and would be outraged if the farmer suggested sticking a bit of soil in the holes and pouring some 99p grass seed over it.

I agree with DaftyDuck and Davesnave. There is no way I would allow the OP's friend or family to cut the tree up themselves due to the liability if they manage to injure themselves in the process. There are two choices, the farmer cuts the tree up, or the farmer employs qualified tree workers to cut it up.

In the latter case it will cost the OP's friend more than £500 for the privilege. The farmer can go to court to claim the cost of this work, and if the OP's friend argues that they should have been allowed to cut the tree up themselves the farmer can point to the fact (backed up by the neighbour) that the friend has allowed the tree to be recklessly felled and should not be trusted to cut it up safely.

In the former case, why would anyone think the farmer doesn't deserve to be paid for their time to cut the tree up and remove all the debris? Not all of which can be burnt as fuel. Retaining the firewood should be seen as a 'perk of the job', but if the OP's friend really wants it back then the farmer can make arrangments for it to be collected - but has no obligation to cut it into easily handled sections or to permit the friend to use a chainsaw on his land. (a tractor loader can move very large lumps of wood, but not everybody has access to a tractor )

I completely agree with DaftyDuck's conclusion... and the OP's friend should make an offer (a bit less than £500 perhaps) to make the problem go away and have a decent relationship with their neighbours.

(BTW, I've quoted your post, but the above comments are not directed to you specifically, there are several posts making the same 'no damage/no cost' remarks and the same applies to all of them).

Do they need access to the land to move it.

There should be a bit at the base still on their own land they could attach a winch too.
(or it was not cut down at the bottom)

Drag it back and cut it up without stepping on farmer's land.

If they keep horses on the land what happened to the fence between the properties?


They did check no tree preservation order?