High Hedge Fees

Postby despair » Tue May 02, 2006 10:53 am

I know quite a few people who have surrounded their properties with Leylandii then added a swimming pool and a trampoline and make no effort whatever to control the noise their children make even quite late in the evening

They seem to think other neighbours have no right to enjoy their gardens in the way they choose
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

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.
 

Postby subjecttocontract » Tue May 02, 2006 11:30 am

.........and I know people who complain about leylandi whilst at the same time appear oblivious to the problems they inflict with their their cats, their kids and their selfish attitudes.

Do not assume that 'everyone' with a leylandi problem is blameless !
subjecttocontract
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:06 pm
Location: Essex, Spain, South of France

Postby Treeman » Tue May 02, 2006 7:01 pm

Conveyancer wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some important food plants sterile? Also, the mule is quite useful - I think it can carry goods in places that no machine can yet reach.


Sorry I forgot that mules are still considered a primary transport medium in some places.

The point is that neither mules nor leylandii would exist in anything other than isolated examples without the interference of man. Nature has made them sterile and as such declared them to be of no further use.

Treeman
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Charges for Leylandii complaints

Postby Alan Harris » Sat May 06, 2006 12:16 am

Dear All

Someone should pay for the high hedgedisputes but it would be fairer if the party at fault had to reimburse the other party or pay in proportion with responsibility to be decided by the adjudicator It works for Party Wall disputes and in law generally.

The leylandii is only the weapon from one neighbour against the other.

The problem is a recent one for a generation generally interested most in acquisition of lifestyle and the right to do as they wish. In the mid part of the last century people were similar on the whole but there was overall more respect one for the other especially as the system was policed by the corporate body of neighbours where everyone knew the others in the neighbourhood and anti social behaviour was singled out by the group against the non conformists.

It is different now because the neighbour to neighbour behaviour rules are not policed by the group as neighbours do not know each other. People move frequently and there is good reason to have clear rules as to what is good behaviour in the community. Nevertheless the complainer should not have to pay when his neighbour from hell give him no other option but complain.

regards Alan
Alan is a consulting engineer specialising in subsidence, tree roots, soils and party wall surveying.
Alan Harris
Expert
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Hayes, Kent

Postby despair » Sat May 06, 2006 9:03 am

VERY WELL SAID Alan
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Postby leecher_ko » Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:04 pm

nigelrb wrote:Hello all, <br /> <br /> Just read an item in Gloucestershire Echo stating that application fees ...
Than they are? I do not understand:)
_________________
Try a free programm for extract proxy
leecher_ko
 

Postby obscured by clouds » Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:01 am

as an up date on HH fees, I have now had a chance to sort out a few and to quote two extremes... an easy one and a difficult one.

The easy one took a few days of letter writing, a couple of meetings with the protagonists, some 80 miles of travelling [we're a large county] and a repeat visit to see that the work was done.

the other one has taken 6 months of on/off negotiations [not helped by the hedge owner taking every other tree out and thus effectively removing the hedge from the HH regs :wink: now there's a trick] There are multiple complainants, all of whom are going to appeal, because 3 large trees are left which in our opinion have more value as amenity trees than as a [non] barrier to light etc.

IMO the £320 we charge here in wales is cheap.
obscured by clouds
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:11 pm

Postby despair » Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:39 am

£320 is not cheap to the little old widow of 84 existing on state pension whose garden which was her pride and joy and light to her bungalow is ruined by towering leylandi hedge and the typical £600 which an awful lot of authorities are quoting is daylight robbery
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Postby Alan Harris » Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:49 am

Dear Dispair

It aught to be possible for the complainant to recover the costs of the adjudication from the high hedge owner if the adjudicator finds in favour of the hedge owner. In legal arbitrations the arbitrator decides which party should should pay his or her fee or whether it should be apportioned.

Living in hope of a politician picking this one up.

Regards

Alan Harris
Alan is a consulting engineer specialising in subsidence, tree roots, soils and party wall surveying.
Alan Harris
Expert
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Hayes, Kent

Postby Conveyancer » Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:23 pm

Alan Harris wrote:Dear Dispair

It aught to be possible for the complainant to recover the costs of the adjudication from the high hedge owner if the adjudicator finds in favour of the hedge owner. In legal arbitrations the arbitrator decides which party should should pay his or her fee or whether it should be apportioned.

Living in hope of a politician picking this one up.

Regards

Alan Harris


It is true that in arbitration the arbitrator has the power to award costs, but the procedure under the high hedges legislation is not arbitration.
If you have benefited from advice on this site please consider contributing to a cancer charity.
Conveyancer
 
Posts: 5609
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:19 pm
Location: Andalucía

Postby Alan Harris » Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:30 pm

Dear Conveyancer

I realise that the high hedges legislation does not establish arbitration but the process is very close to it and the same principle should apply

regards

Alan Harris
Alan is a consulting engineer specialising in subsidence, tree roots, soils and party wall surveying.
Alan Harris
Expert
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Hayes, Kent

Postby Conveyancer » Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:31 pm

despair wrote:£320 is not cheap to the little old widow of 84 existing on state pension whose garden which was her pride and joy and light to her bungalow is ruined by towering leylandi hedge and the typical £600 which an awful lot of authorities are quoting is daylight robbery


I have some sympathy with your point of view, but I do think think it is correct to say that £600 is a "typical" fee when only three or four councils are charging fees of £600 or more.[/list]
If you have benefited from advice on this site please consider contributing to a cancer charity.
Conveyancer
 
Posts: 5609
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:19 pm
Location: Andalucía

Postby despair » Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:36 pm

The fact that 3 or 4 charge £600 is more than enough if you live in those areas and even worse if you live in the one that charges £650

Theres lots who are charging £450 to £550 as well and OPDM guidance has basically precluded the complainant being able to recoup the charge via the SCC


Do not know if anyone has tried though

I think a comparison should be made to Planning Application fees which are a mere £130
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Postby Arbtech » Mon May 07, 2007 9:23 am

nigelrb wrote:What have I started with this posting?

Perfectly correct though, Mav. Council tax should provide for the services to its citizens. Perhaps we would not object to a 'token' amount as an application fee- but £400 to £500? It is surely over the top.

I would enjoy reading end of year financial reports of some councils to learn what really happens with OUR money; how much profit is made; and how much is 'washed' away by various overseas/international 'workshop' trips/jaunts and the like.

The shame is that it will be the 'poor' £6.00 per hour (if they're lucky) clerk who will face the brunt of community objections to this fee.

Further to arbcats [sic] extraordinary view on the appeal process, an appellant is bound to fund his own appeal and usually has the ability to claim most of the costs if his appeal is successful. If the council is prepared to launch proceeding against a hedge owner, it had better be certain that its process is complete and just, rather than some of the seemingly rash retrospective decisions that are made in favour of some applicants. Despite this, we can only wonder: are councils actually expecting a surge of appeals?

Cheers, Nigel

Councils don't make a profit. They waste it.

Anyways, the fact is that I disagree with you entirely. At a recent HH appeal Arbtech Consulting represented a customer at (and won) our fees eclipsed the GBP600.00 you're moaning about by some margin. The reason we won is our case was very strong, owing to the bias nature in which the Council had dealt with the complaints and the farcical nature of the complainants, well, complaints. Were it not for us, a very nice (and if you want to play the political card; elderly) couple would have been steamrolled in to reducing their hedge by some 64pc. (Ludicrous in its own right, but anyway). It bloody well should be GBP5-600.00 to complain as that hopefully absolves the system of the majority of vexatious complaints.

In my somewhat extensive experience of the HH legislation in both England and Wales, it has come to my attention that the HH complaints procedure is in the majority of instances, nothing more than a tool to piss your neighbour off with. I don't think I have attended a single hearing (Wales) or come across a single case (England and Wales) where 'underlying issues' don't eventually rear their ugly head as the real reason for wanting the hedge down.

Robert
Arbtech Consulting Ltd.
Tree and ecology consultancy
www.arbtech.co.uk
Arbtech
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: Kendal, Chester, London

Postby despair » Mon May 07, 2007 10:02 am

Arbtech

What height was that hedge for goodness sake if the HH Law would have steamrollered a reduction of 64%

Its all very well representing Hedge Owners who dont want their hedge reduced but i know what its like living with the hell of a HH that the new law will do nothing about

How any professional could defend the unholy mess i look at is beyond me but no doubt for enough money some professionals have no principles

I wonder what you would be saying if you saw my side of "the hedge"
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

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.
 
PreviousNext

Return to News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest