Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed May 21, 2014 2:52 pm

Hi Rosenberg,

having reviewed a selection of your 'ukmicky' posting by using the 'Advanced search' tool, I think I now understand your viewpoint.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 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.
 

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Wed May 21, 2014 3:00 pm

arsie wrote:
Rosenberg wrote:My opinion is that people should avoid legal action wherever possible

I tend to agree with your opinion Rosenberg even in the absence of any 'substantiating evidence' from you :wink:

An opinion doesn't necessarily require substatiation. But when someone does provide what seem to be substatiating assertions (as ukMicky has done) they should be based on evidence. It appears that ukMicky simply made his "facts" up to support the position he had decided to take.

arsie wrote:However I do not agree with the attitude behind this:
Rosenberg wrote:I note your tactical withdrawl ukMicky, but when you do take another peek at this topic maybe you'll summon up the guts to give an honest answer.

As you claim that your assertions weren't guesswork, the rational thing to do would be explain what evidence you have to back them up.

If you won't supply any evidence that "the courts would be waist deep in claims" and that "all the councils would be bankrupt", it is only reasonable for readers to conlude that you are indeed guessing.

An honest guess isn't a bad thing as long as you say that's what it was. Just admit it. Unless, of course, there was more to it than that: surely it couldn't have been a deliberately dishonest fabrication to bolster the position you had chosen to take. Could it?

If someone had posted at me with so much passive/aggressive language I would have lived up to my handle :mrgreen: That Ukmicky has backed off speaks volumes. He is a big contributor and has a point of view that is usually useful - and we don't have to quote endless case history every time we speak on here!

Yes it does speak volumes, probably indicating that ukMicky can't provide a reasoned response of his own.
The fact that he is a regular contributor only makes his fabrications worse.

arsie wrote:You have ignored my post that provides an answer which I think explains Ukmicky's colourfully expressed opinion. My opinion is that these days you would be likely to get short shrift if you took a tree overhang or even leaf dropping to the courts, as Mac also seems to suggest. Would you care to respond? To refresh your memory here is the main part. What do you think of the Trees thread?

arsie wrote:I too think as Ukmicky does, based in my case on this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15543&p=166077#p166077 in the Trees subforum. But as always the law is not a fixed in perpetuity thing and nowadays I think the beak might have less time for the majority of what might be seen as trivial disputes even though inconsiderate behaviour has increased (my grumpy old man opinion - not based on data!)

I didn't ignore your post arsie, i just didn't have time to reply when I first saw it.
I think you might have misunderstood the nature of my complaint. It is clearly laid out the first post I made in this thread.
On the TOTALLY DIFFERENT question of whether I think tree growth is a trespass, I have answered that in subsequent posts.
You now ask what I think of the Trees thread. I think it is about as useful as any other thread on this forum. Why do you ask?
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Wed May 21, 2014 3:02 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Rosenberg,

having reviewed a selection of your 'ukmicky' posting by using the 'Advanced search' tool, I think I now understand your viewpoint.

Kind regards, Mac

Yes, this is not his first time.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed May 21, 2014 4:41 pm

Hi Rosenberg,

Yes, this is not his first time.

not his first time to be castigated by you? that is true.

I get the point you're aggressively pursuing, but on this occasion I think you've seen a target to set your sights on that simply isn't there.

Let's just move on, eh? this isn't helping the OP at all.

All my non-expert, unqualified opinion.

Baffled regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby ukmicky » Wed May 21, 2014 8:29 pm

I will end my participation with this thread with the following tactful withdrawal .

The argument of Trespass vs Nuisance was settled more than a 100 years ago in one of the most well known the cases there is.

Lemmon v Webb

LJ Kay

"The encroachment of the boughs and roots over and within the land of the adjoining owner is not a trespass or occupation of that land which by lapse of time could become a right.It is a nuisance. For any damage occasioned by this an action on the case would lie. Also, the person whose land is so affected may abate the nuisance if the owner of the tree after notice neglects to do so."



This subject has been discussed many times over the years ,the most recent being.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15284&p=129522&hilit=trespass#p129522
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby ukmicky » Thu May 22, 2014 12:15 am

Last thing

If i had thought that i would have to prove that i am not making things up like i have just had to everytime i posted on this forum i would no longer participate and try and help people.

Remembering every case name is impossible and therefore the time it can take to find the right case and then read through it to find the relevant parts is something which can often take hours to do (if still availiable in a format that can be viewed on here) and i seriously have much better things to do with my time ,most of the time.


The End

P.S
I also have dyslexia and you have no idea how hard it can be posting something that is totally word perfect or structured correctly and therefore normally try to only post if i have the time to read through it 20 times .
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 11:12 am

For goodness sake ukMicky, not the old dyslexia card again. I'm not criticising your spelling or grammar as you well know. I'm not disagreeing with you over the "trees do not trespass issue". As I have made very plain at the start of my paricipation on this thread, the thing I find objectionable is your fabrication of supporting "facts".

For anyone else who still doesn't get it, let me give a simple analogy. The advert implies Whiskas is a product woth buying because "8 out of 10 cats prefer it". But if the latter assertion had been fabricated (like ukMicky's assertions) it misleads the audience.

Frankly I'm amazed that anyone needs to have it explained so many times.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu May 22, 2014 11:33 am

Hi Rosenberg,

is your only beef to do with ukmicky's "unsubstantiated" assertion that if we could sue each other for trespass if a tree encroaches on our property (which you seem to now concede we can't...) that we would see many trees owners sticking resolutely to a regular schedule of work to avoid being sued?

as a tree owner it is what I would do.

what would you do? I fancy you'd cut your trees back
what would authorities do? I fancy they'd cut their trees back
what would many other tree owners do? I fancy they'd cut their trees back

but given this is all hypothetical because you can't be sued for trespass if it's just encroachment then how on earth can we substantiate the above?

like I wrote before - I think you're aiming at something that isn't there (and, to me at least, it's bad form).

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby arborlad » Thu May 22, 2014 12:07 pm

Rosenberg wrote:I think you might have misunderstood the nature of my complaint. It is clearly laid out the first post I made in this thread.



Your first post in three years was quite clearly a failed attempt to discredit a member of this forum.




You now ask what I think of the Trees thread. I think it is about as useful as any other thread on this forum.



...........and now a failed attempt to discredit the entire forum.


Admin?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7384
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby despair » Thu May 22, 2014 12:43 pm

If Rosenberg had the misfortune to suffer Dyslexia he would have a darn site more understanding and appreciation of the immense amount of patience and free help provided by UKMicky


Rosenbergs rudeness is wholly unacceptable
despair
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 12:43 pm

Arborlad

Re your first point: discredit is too strong a word; it was an attempt to point out two of his specific failings. Whether my attempt failed is for others to decide. You are entitled to your own opinion on that.

Re your second point: it was not an attempt to discredit the entire forum; it was a truthful answer to a question I was asked.

In both cases, the clue is in the words I used.

Admin? Yes please.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 12:46 pm

Depair,

I haven't been rude to anyone. I have simply voiced my opinion on the quality of, and motivation for, ukMicky's posts.

Incidentally, in what way does dyslexia excuse fabrication of facts?

It's good to see all the regulars closing ranks.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu May 22, 2014 1:55 pm

Hi Rosenberg,

you seem to me to lack any self-awareness insofar as you keep stating your opinion "as fact" whilst castigating others for doing something similar:

he can get a bit uppity (I think he can get a bit uppity)
it is only reasonable for readers to conlude that you are indeed guessing. (I think it is only reasonable...)
ukMicky is doing this forum a disservice (I think...)
But when someone does provide what seem to be substatiating assertions (as ukMicky has done) (as I think ukMicky has done)
It appears that ukMicky simply made his "facts" up (It appears to me...)
You give the impression that you're extrapolating your prejudices to breaking point. (You give me...)
The fact that he is a regular contributor only makes his fabrications worse. (I think...)
Re your first point: discredit is too strong a word (I think discredit...)

and sometimes misrepresent other's contributions:

As you claim that your assertions weren't guesswork (this was not claimed)
in what way does dyslexia excuse fabrication of facts? (dyslexia was not put forward as an excuse)
But if the latter assertion had been fabricated (like ukMicky's assertions) (he made an observation - just badly worded IMHO)

the bit in blue is why I don't agree with your "substantiate or else" diatribe...

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby arsie » Thu May 22, 2014 2:51 pm

he made an observation - just badly worded IMHO


I think ukmicky's 'observation' that Rosenberg wanted 'substantiating' was an example of hyperbole, whereby a writer makes a gross exaggeration to highlight a point. Ukmicky said he thought the courts would be waist deep in claims and councils would all be bankrupt, if we could successfully claim damages for a branch of someone else's tree encroaching on the space above our property. Expecting hard evidence to support this hyperbole - a colourful way of expressing an opinion - is rather simple minded.

It is accepted that you may abate this nuisance by cutting back and offering the cuttings to the neighbour as they are his property. There are many examples on the Trees subforum and there is guidance to this effect on the main board here. The OP (seawitch) stated he/she had successfully claimed the costs of cutting back encroaching trees, 15 years ago. I think the general view here is that such claims would not be welcome in courts today. Unless the OP or Rosenberg can quote actual case history to the contrary?
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby arsie » Thu May 22, 2014 5:59 pm

Mac, I am fairly sure you would get laughed out of court if you brought a claim for tree or hedge trimming. This web site has clear advice on what to do and how to go about it. The OP has spoken in general terms and admits it was 15 years ago. As far as I am concerned this is hearsay until he/she provides evidence or at least a lot more detail of the memory of a small claim that amounted to what exactly? But the OP has gone away happy to write a letter and we will see what transpires.

There would need to be a lot more to a claim than just having to lop a few branches or trim a hedge. As is well understood you are allowed to abate the nuisance yourself. Trees don't trespass - but they do encroach. One of our tree people made that distinction clear. If you are making the case that there may be a trespass situation then you might be right but the vast majority of situations are nuisance only and there is a well established process by which you may abate the nuisance. Of course you have to avoid endangering the life of the tree(s) or hedge(s) which could lead to claims of damages etc but surely you don't think a tree growing over the boundary or leaves falling is trespass :roll:
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.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Fences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jonahinoz and 5 guests