Greetings one and all,
Hope the forthcomming season of good will finds us all in good spirits and
with heads about as bad as mine feels after a heavy weekend on the pop!!!
To this isssue of re-charging people, for dangerouse trees. yep good old MPA
could help, and if you knok on the door and the folks are in and they tell
you to do the work and re-charge them then that is a contract. they are
bound to it a simple sheet to sign and date, here have a copy, bill will be
in the post........hey presto. Does not matter if you are calling it a
dangerouse tree under MPA or whatever.
The higways act AS AMMENDED all sorts of fun can be had with this, yep duty
to keep free from obstructions, but the old favourate of the no win no fee
money grabbers is also the duty to keep SAFE & Suitible condition for use,
if we tie ion that little used circular from the 70's that requires HA's to
inspect trees that are within falling distance and take suitable action then
we are getting somwear.
ost Primary legislation that LA's deal with has severa; methods of access
and securing the requirments of the legislation, so if you look hardenough
ypu can do it.
But what you have all forgotten is the basic Torts of Negligence and
Nuisance. Good old Rylands v Fletcher, absolute duty, (dependant on a few
bit's but still relervant.)
They must not let there tree escape, if there is iminant danger you must
take action, and to be quite honest, this is the bit where H/W engeneers
need to pick up the phone and say ' oi tree team come and tell me how
iminant this danger is'.
If action is needed based on a tree experts opinion, then it should be
taken, but show auditable steps, and be ready for the usualy less than
plesent phone call when the bill with all those loverly 'on costs' thumps on
the mat.
I beleve that the weight of common law backing up those of statute law would
have the tree owner over ther preverbial barrell, and i stuck my neck out 2
or 3 times at southend and never got combacks.
remember Statute law is clarified by that of common and vis versa, you are
best to consider the two together and always remember 'reasnobly
practical'....
so ho hum off to another christmas party, sopme more resolves, and the buity
of very blured morning vision
happy xmas one and all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Birtles, Jerry" <jbirtles@xxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
To: <uktc@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:48 PM
Subject: RE: charging for street work
Edmund
As far as I know there is no formal mechanism - probably no legal
mechanism
either - for recuperating money spent on emergency clearance.
As mentioned elsewhere, Highways Act Section 154 gives powers to serve
Notices and then undertake works, and charge the owner, if they default -
but to do that you need to go through the full process - serve the notices
and wait the appropriate period etc - which is a fat lot of help if the
tree
is lying across a road. The Highway authority has a duty to ensure the
highway is free of obstruction so you could clear up, say, a fallen tree
without the permission of the owner - but there is no obligation for them
to
pay up afterwards.
However, if the tree hasn't fallen but is seriously swaying, the Highways
Act doesn't help - you have to wait for the Notice to expire - and hope it
doesn't fall over in the meantime.
You can use the Misc Prov Act adjacent to the Highway - but it only helps
if
you don't actually know the owner/occupiers name at the time of needing to
do urgent works - otherwise you are stuck with serving notices again. You
could always turn up on site with your saw and claim that the works were
so
urgent you couldn't knock on the door to find out who they were - in which
case Misc Prov section 24(4) could come into play (which enables you to
use
section 23(2)). Using 23(2) enables you to recharge them - when you
eventually find out who they are!
The quick way is turn up, do the work, then just send them a bill. Most
people pay.
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Hopkins [mailto:edmond.hopkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk]
Sent: 17 December 2001 09:31
To: 'uktc@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk'
Subject: charging for street work
Does any Local Authority out there routinely charge householders the cost
of tree work undertaken on the highway in respect to privately owned
trees?
I mean typically storm damage requiring an emergency call out, rather than
enforcement as such. I am particularly interested in systems; How
authorisation is got from householders, what if they're not in, what if
they refuse access, how are backs covered-is it via on site written risk
assessment, or what?
______________________________________________________________________
Unless otherwise expressly stated, nothing in this e-mail shall, as
between
the City Council and the recipient and/or any other party, be deemed to
constitute any contract or order or create any kind of contractual
relationship.
______________________________________________________________________
______
THE FOLLOWING WARNING IS GIVEN IS RESPECT OF ANY ATTACHMENTS
1. Whilst Nottingham City Council takes steps to prevent computer
viruses from being transmitted via electronic mail attachments, it does
not
give any guarantee that attachments do not contain such viruses. You are
strongly advised to undertake anti-virus checks prior to accessing any
attachments to this electronic mail.
2. Nottingham City Council shall not be responsible for any detrimental
reliance you place on any attachments and makes no representations or
warranties of any kind with respect to any attachments or their contents
and
disclaims all such representations and warranties. In addition,
Nottingham
City Council makes no representations or warranties about the accuracy,
completeness or suitability for any purposes of any attachments. Any
attachments may contain technical inaccuracies or typographical errors.
All
liability of Nottingham City Council howsoever arising for any such
inaccuracies or errors is expressly excluded to the fullest extent
permitted
by law.
3. Neither Nottingham City Council, nor any of its staff will be liable
for damages arising out of or in connection with the use of any
attachments.
This is a comprehensive limitation of liability that applies to all
damages
of any kind, including (without limitation) compensatory, direct, indirect
or consequential damages, loss of data, income or profit, loss of or
damage
to property and claims of third parties.
4. All brand names, product names and titles and copyrights used in any
attachments, are the trade marks or trade names or copyrights of their
respective holders. No permission is given by Nottingham City Council in
respect of the use of any such brand names, product names or titles or
copyrights and such use may constitute an infringement of the holder's
rights.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubcribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
=====================================================================
IMPORTANT:
Confidentiality: This e-mail and its attachments are intended for
the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to
you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy
or show them to anyone; please reply to this e-mail and highlight the
error.
=====================================================================
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubcribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubcribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
