UKTC Archive

Re: RE: RE: RE: TPO Compensation

Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: TPO Compensation
From: Julian Morris
Date: Jan 03 2019 14:32:32
Oh, I give up (but not in). The given scenario would make for a suicidal 
Tribunal case.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk  and  highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 at 1:49 PM
From: "oisink@xxxxxxxxxxx.com" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: TPO Compensation

The scenario given was a £2000 difference. And this would be consequential.

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Julian Morris
Sent: 03 January 2019 13:41
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: RE: RE: TPO Compensation

I wasn't clear. The cost of replacement (after refusal) with the tree 
there, less the cost of replacement (now) with the tree there is probably 
£nothing. The damage is already done and the need for replacement is not a 
consequence refusal.

The replacement therefore becomes a separate non-compensatable proposal. It 
would be cheaper without the tree there (albeit taking into account the 
cost of tree removal and/or the loss of amenity value). Imagine there's no 
wall or it has fallen over and the tree owner wants to remove a TPO'd tree 
so as to be able to build a wall cheaper. TPO application to remove tree, 
refusal, no statutory basis for compensation. 

Case closed. 

The subsidence scenario is different but relevant, although the equivalent 
in Trevor's case would be a more expensive repair to the extent of the 
post-refusal damage only. If a subsiding house had to be demolished because 
of pre-refusal damage, the LPA would not be liable for rebuilding with 
deeper foundations, nor I think would they be bound to allow removal of the 
tree so that rebuilding with shallower ones was acceptable. 

And this is the would-be claimant's tree damaging the would-be claimant's 
wall. 

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services jamtrees.co.uk  and  
highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 at 12:47 PM
From: "oisink@xxxxxxxxxxx.com" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: RE: TPO Compensation

It is "loss or damage", not just damage, and the increased cost (loss) as 
a result of retaining the tree only occurs once a consent is refused. 
This happens frequently in cases of subsidence, where the damage occurs 
before the TPO application, but LPAs have been found liable on many 
occasions for the increased costs incurred as a result of a refusal of 
consent to fell the tree.

The scenario presented suggests a loss of £2k or so, so not below the 
£500 minimum threshold.

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Julian Morris
Sent: 03 January 2019 12:40
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: RE: TPO Compensation

But since the replacement of the wall is because of damage caused before 
a refusal (which as yet has no application), there woud be a theoretical 
right to compensation but the quantum of it would be as near zero as to 
be below the £500 de minimis level. Ineed, I can't even think how the 
cost of replacement could increase once the need for replacement has 
already been reached.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services jamtrees.co.uk  and  
highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 at 11:22 AM
From: "oisink@xxxxxxxxxxx.com" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: TPO Compensation

I agree it's not that simple, but for different reasons.

In the scenario described, a refusal of consent would result in a 
loss calculated as the difference between the cost of repairs
(1) with the tree retained; and
(2) with the tree removed .

Assuming there is no other viable repair method, this does form the 
basis of a valid claim. The increased costs arises as a result of a 
refusal of consent. 

But in seeking to reject a claim, I reiterate the Council might suggest 
alternative ways of fixing the wall with the tree present - so be sure. 
Also, in practice it is difficult to get Council's to pay up 
unilaterally and you may need to make a claims via the Lands Tribunal, 
for which the usual legal fees and litigation risks apply. For a sum of 
around £2000, I doubt many would wish to run that to the Lands tribunal.

Good luck

Oisin

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Julian Morris
Sent: 03 January 2019 11:01
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: TPO Compensation

[Text converted from HTML]
Trevor, not that simple. Firstly claims for compensation canot be met 
retrospectively. The damage needs to have happened after a refusal, and 
the refusal has to be done in the knowledge of reasonably foreseeable 
damage. Secondly, an application for removal of the tree might 
reasonably be met with refusal by the LA because (as you say yourself) 
an alternative solution to removal is possible, even if it is expensive.

Oh and thirdly, it depends what the TPO says. Orders can legitimately 
include or exclude rights to compensation.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services jamtrees.co.uk and 
highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 at 10:26 AM
From: "theapsy@xxxxxx.com" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: TPO Compensation

Hi All.
Can you help out with this scenario please.
Mrs 'Smith' has a protected tree in her rear garden that is 
clearly
pushing over her listed boundary brick wall.
Having received quotes, it's going to cost £5,000 to demolish and
re-build the wall with the tree in situ (i.e using special / bridging 
foundations). Or, it's going to cost £3,000 to demolish and re-build 
the wall with traditional foundations (if the tree can be removed).
If an application to remove the protected tree (supported by a 
report
and copies of the quotes etc) is refused, is the Council liable to pay 
compensation for the difference between the two?
Or am I simplifying the matter too much?
Cheers
Trevor Heaps


--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/