Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby arsie » Mon May 18, 2015 3:44 pm

cleo5 wrote:I have a similar problem. My land is lower than than of the adjoining land. The stone hedge has, along one long boundary, fallen into disrepair. A post and wire fence was put up some years back by the neighbour and a line of fir trees planted (on top of the old stone/hedge which already had an assortment of tall trees on it)
and then left to grow and grow.
Newish owners have recently lopped a bit off these firs. They are still 20ft or more tall and one fell across my path some years back.
My concern is also the state of some of the deciduous trees that are dangerous according to the tree surgeon who came to inspect them last week. They lean right over my land and take light and cause damp so that little thrives when planted beneath them.
They are too high for the overhanging branches to be lopped from my side and I am old and infirm and my only exercise is to walk along that path with a walker as it is relatively flat . All the rest of the garden is steeply sloping.
Dead branches from these trees fall frequently. My grandchildren run along the path. If a tree is rotten and likely to fall without warning then they are in danger.
My deeds show my land goes up to the wall/stone hedge so the trees are not mine.
I do not think the present owners will take any notice if I write to them.
Would the local council be the first people to contact?

Hi cleo5
I put this new thread up for your problem which I think is the trees more than the hedge/wall.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby TO » Tue May 19, 2015 12:11 pm

Hi

The first people to contact would be the tree owner in an attempt to resolve your problems with them.

If that fails you could serve notice on the Council under s23 Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976. However, the Councils powers are discretionary and they do not have to act even if there is a real risk.

TO
TO
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby Collaborate » Tue May 19, 2015 12:47 pm

Subsection 3 of s23:

(3)Where such a council—
(a)receives from a person appearing to the council to be an owner or occupier of land a notice requesting the council to make safe a tree on other land which is in its area and which appears to the council not to be owned or occupied by that person; and
(b)considers that the tree is in such condition that it is likely to cause damage to persons or property on the first-mentioned land; and
(c)knows the name and address of a person appearing to the council to be an owner or occupier of the other land,the council may serve on such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection a notice requiring him to take on the other land, within a reasonable period specified in the notice (which must not expire before the expiration of 21 days beginning with the date of service of the notice), such steps for making the tree safe as are so specified.
Collaborate
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:17 am

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby cleo5 » Wed May 20, 2015 10:49 pm

Thanks for replies.
I will write to the owner and if nothing is done will contact council.
Just wanted to add that some years ago we had a letter from council to say one of our trees was in a dangerous condition and it might fall into the park(which runs along one of our boundaries) and we mus have it felled and it cost £300. Have recently had a quote of £2,200 for felling and removal of a tree. Is this gross over-charging?
cleo5
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:33 pm

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby arsie » Wed May 20, 2015 11:05 pm

Yes
but there are tree experts on here to explain. £300 is a day's labour dunno how £2,200 is justified?
Get some quotes. Here is a link to Which? magazine http://local.which.co.uk/advice/choosing-a-tree-surgeon-choose-best-surgery
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby arborlad » Wed May 20, 2015 11:44 pm

cleo5 wrote: Have recently had a quote of £2,200 for felling and removal of a tree.



Get at least one more quote, preferably through recommendation.



............. and we mus have it felled and it cost £300.



Are you still in contact with this person, did they do a satisfactory job for the money?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby TO » Fri May 22, 2015 8:42 am

Hi

cleo5 wrote:Have recently had a quote of £2,200 for felling and removal of a tree. Is this gross over-charging?
arsie wrote:Yes


How do you know. It might be a small tree that would take one person with a bow saw five minutes. It might be a large tree with limited access, surrounded by high value targets that requires a crane, road closure, and take several operatives a week to dismantle and remove. If the former the answer would be yes, if the latter it's extraordinarily cheap.

Get at least three quotes, and choose the one you're happiest with. But make sure they have the insurance, qualifications, training, and experience to do the job.

TO
TO
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby arsie » Fri May 22, 2015 11:09 am

TO wrote:Hi

cleo5 wrote:Have recently had a quote of £2,200 for felling and removal of a tree. Is this gross over-charging?
arsie wrote:Yes

How do you know.
TO

I don't.

But I can compare £300 with £2,200 and agree with the OP's feelings.

Getting some quotes and checking prices for the job as it now stands, is clearly the way forward. Hopefully the OP and his neighbour can sort something out. The high cost of work by 'experts' on trees that have been neglected (compared with the zero cost of neglect) leads many people to choose to do nothing, in my opinion.

But that is only an opinion.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby cleo5 » Sat May 23, 2015 11:48 pm

Thank you all for your answers. Quote for £2,200 was about ten days ago. Tall /old ash tree on stone hedge(neighbours stone hedge) most of tree overhanging my land. It would fall across steeply sloping land so be a lot of work cutting and carting away or stacking. The other trees that were causing a nuisance son in law has managed to prune back a bit.
The one cut down( a 50yr old beech) for £300 was just left where it lay to rot away over the years.
Decided against getting more estimates yet as tree is not my property and they are nasty neighbours so do not want any contact with them(except through the courts). Shall just write to the council.
I have found all your replies very helpful in coming to a decision.
cleo5
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:33 pm

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby APC » Sun May 24, 2015 11:02 am

cleo5 wrote:Shall just write to the council.


Council would likely want to see evidence you have attempted to resolve this yourself before they'll investigate under misc prov.
APC
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:37 pm

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby arsie » Sun May 24, 2015 11:14 am

cleo5 wrote:Thank you all for your answers. Quote for £2,200 was about ten days ago. Tall /old ash tree on stone hedge(neighbours stone hedge) most of tree overhanging my land. It would fall across steeply sloping land so be a lot of work cutting and carting away or stacking. The other trees that were causing a nuisance son in law has managed to prune back a bit.
The one cut down( a 50yr old beech) for £300 was just left where it lay to rot away over the years.
Decided against getting more estimates yet as tree is not my property and they are nasty neighbours so do not want any contact with them(except through the courts). Shall just write to the council.
I have found all your replies very helpful in coming to a decision.

That makes a difference. I would not agree £2,200 is robbery compared with £300 knowing this.

As APC says, you must try to resolve this directly. As with many council interventions and most escalations to 'higher authority' you have to use normal procedures - negotiation - first.

Why not knock on his door? If he refuses to discuss it write a letter recorded signed for. Wait.

Then go to the council.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby cleo5 » Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:05 pm

just seen your post arsie.
Thank you.
Council charges over £321 to come and look so that's out.

We will just leave the dangerous one to fall when it will. If it takes the wall with it then tough! If the owner wants the wood he can come and collect it.
Can't really do anything as as that ufn has been told not to harrass us. They'd not take any notice anyway.

The leaning tree is a huge ash probably 70-100 yrs old and def on neighbours wall but trunk and all branches leaning across my path. Along that wall are about 20 or more fir trees planted originally about a metre apart. these have been lopped a bit but still about 20-metres high. My land is some feet lower so they seem higher. Along with all the other old trees there it makes the path very dark and damp.
I love trees and planted 200 when we came but really wish I'd planted cherry trees instead.
cleo5
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:33 pm

Re: Trees not maintained on boundary wall (cleo5)

Postby arsie » Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:25 pm

Blimey 200 trees - a lot to keep maintained!

I think your attitude is the best way forward, although ash is one of if not the best woods for burning on stoves. Good heat, good burn time, little or no ash(!). Fir trees are not generally so well regarded. Cherry trees are lovely but drop a lot of debris and can be susceptible to disease if not looked after, so maybe it's just as well you didn't do that, with hindsight.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Return to Trees

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests