Eucalyptus Tree 70'

ace_mcgraw
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:18 am

Re: Eucalyptus Tree 70'

Post by ace_mcgraw » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:14 pm

Well if it has done damage then the owner of the tree is liable for it, which is totally fair enough.

If, however, there has been no damage done then surely there isn't anything to complain about. All I was pointing out was that the advice given in previous posts was fairly inaccurate.

He can cut the roots, but he risks being liable if the tree then falls over or dies. It's a difficult situation, but they are the facts.

mr sheen
Posts: 2315
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:33 pm

Re: Eucalyptus Tree 70'

Post by mr sheen » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:24 pm

Where the owner of an unsuitably placed tree has been notified of the intention to abate the nuisance of encroaching roots, the tree owner may be considered negligent if they did not check the effect of such abatement on the stability etc of the tree. This would leave the tree owner likely to be considered negligent and liable; may even be contributory negligence on both sides, who knows? - we cannot predict what might happen when all the evidence is considered, not even 'Ace' can predict where negligence would be judged to lie.

Question 'Ace' ...If we all plant eucalyptus around the edge of our boundaries the roots will spread to our neighbours, can we thus prevent our neighbours developing any of their land for risk of being liable for any damages?

ukmicky
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: Eucalyptus Tree 70'

Post by ukmicky » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:04 pm

mr sheen wrote:Where the owner of an unsuitably placed tree has been notified of the intention to abate the nuisance of encroaching roots, the tree owner may be considered negligent if they did not check the effect of such abatement on the stability etc of the tree. This would leave the tree owner likely to be considered negligent and liable; may even be contributory negligence on both sides, who knows? - we cannot predict what might happen when all the evidence is considered, not even 'Ace' can predict where negligence would be judged to lie.

Question 'Ace' ...If we all plant eucalyptus around the edge of our boundaries the roots will spread to our neighbours, can we thus prevent our neighbours developing any of their land for risk of being liable for any damages?
A negligent act of cutting a tree roots causing a trees instability which then directly leads to it falling will always remain a negligent act. If you cut a trees roots and it falls and causes harm to your neighbour you will be held responsible no matter who owns the tree.

The owner of the land that the roots are causing a nuisance on has duty of care to others when it comes to any action he performs in respect to work on the tree and must ensure due to that duty of care that any work he performs will not lead to damage or harm to others.


The tree owner may have a duty of care towards his neighbours in respect to the tree and if he were to find out that it was in a dangerous condition must still act but that will not remove any negligent act that caused it.

The trees owner would most probably have more protection from the law as he can to some extent rely on the fact that nature has provided it with a root structure that has allowed it to reach 70 ft and therefore should still remain safe even if it reaches 80 and he has a right to continue to rely on that as part of the reasoning towards his belief that the tree should still remain safe..

He has got to be able to rely on that because it would not be practical or in his power to gain access to the neighbours property, remove the earth around the tree in order to see what damage may or may have not been done due to the negligent actions of the land owner who legally should not be performing any work on the tree due to his duty of care that leaves it in a dangerous state.
Well if it has done damage then the owner of the tree is liable for it, which is totally fair enough.
Not necessarily
.
Last edited by ukmicky on Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

ace_mcgraw
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:18 am

Re: Eucalyptus Tree 70'

Post by ace_mcgraw » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:08 pm

mr sheen wrote:Question 'Ace' ...If we all plant eucalyptus around the edge of our boundaries the roots will spread to our neighbours, can we thus prevent our neighbours developing any of their land for risk of being liable for any damages?
Quite possibly, but of course by planting a row of eucalyptus in a row around the edge of the garden you're opening yourself up to problems regarding high hedges rules. It's a minefield out there :lol:

In terms of your other point, this is quite interesting http://www.w4mp.org/html/library/standa ... -02999.pdf
And in a way that backs up your point of giving notice to the owner of the tree that damage is being caused, so that the owner of the tree may then become liable for preventing any further damage.

But as far as I read in the OP, there has been no damage yet, so there isn't any grounds for this sort of action.

mr sheen
Posts: 2315
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:33 pm

Re: Eucalyptus Tree 70'

Post by mr sheen » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:12 am

High Hedge legislation can be avoided by topping the eucalyptus, but roots just keep on spreading.

Hostage
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:10 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 10

Re: Eucalyptus Tree 70'

Post by Hostage » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:55 am

I have a very similar problem to the original poster. My neighbour also refuses to cut back their tree as they don't see that there is a problem. I believe this is because they do not actually live at the house, but rent it out. Quite apart from the nuisance element of the eucalyptus,
loss of light, piles of leaves and bark, the tree is damaging my property, as my garden around the tree is a virtual dust bowl during the
summer, as the tree sucks all the moisture from the ground. This coupled with the cost to us, £500 in the last five years, to keep the tree trimmed back on our side, leads me to believe that there must be some legal avenue that we can explore, if our neighbour continues to be so inconsiderate, as to continue to allow a tree, so unsuitable for the area it is in, to grow unchecked.

TO
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:05 pm

Re: Eucalyptus Tree 70'

Post by TO » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:37 pm

Hi
Hostage wrote:My neighbour also refuses to cut back their tree
Why should they cut it back?
Hostage wrote:they don't see that there is a problem
That's because there isn't.
Hostage wrote:they do not actually live at the house, but rent it out
What's wrong with that?
Hostage wrote:Quite apart from the nuisance element of the eucalyptus
Which is?
Hostage wrote:loss of light, piles of leaves and bark
That's not nuisance
Hostage wrote:the tree is damaging my property
How?
Hostage wrote:my garden around the tree is a virtual dust bowl during the summer, as the tree sucks all the moisture from the ground
That's not damage to your property.
Hostage wrote:the cost to us, [is] £500 in the last five years, to keep the tree trimmed back on our side
That's just part and parcel of garden/property management, like painting, weeding, cleaning the gutters out, sweeping up leaves, and mowing the lawn etc, they all take time and cost money.
Hostage wrote: there must be some legal avenue that we can explore, if our neighbour continues to be so inconsiderate
Any solicitor will take instructions from you along with your money, but what will that achieve. Why is your neighbour being inconsiderate. Surely you're being inconsiderate in expecting them to do what you want. It's not your tree.
Hostage wrote: a tree, so unsuitable for the area it is in, to grow unchecked
Why is it unsuitable? and why do you think it should be checked/pruned to you're specification? It's not you're tree.

Despair et al will be along shortly to tell you what you want to hear and offer tea and sympathy, unfortunately as per usual it will be just what you want to hear, not what you need to hear.

TO

despair
Posts: 16330
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:07 am

Re: Eucalyptus Tree 70'

Post by despair » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:49 pm

I wonder just what strength and depth any root barrier needs to be to stop the water censored qualities and root spread tendency of Eucalyptus

Thats the kind of help the OP needs more than tea and sympathy

I know thousands of acres of Eucalyptus forests were planted in South Africa but i was advised they have wrecked the soil and water table and such trees will not be planted again.

Hostage
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:10 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 10

Re: Eucalyptus Tree 70'

Post by Hostage » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:24 pm

Wow! TO what a strange insular world you live in. Maybe you should change your user name to Jack
as in " I'm alright ", and don't care if what I do effects anyone else.
For the record the house owner called round last night, after months of prompting from the letting agent,
and agreed the tree needed some considerable pruning. She hadn't realised it had grown so large, and maybe
we could come to an agreement to maintain the tree to both of our satisfaction.
Now TO THAT'S what I wanted to hear.

Post Reply