Another high hedge issue

[James Martin]

JohnD. You have a legal responsibility for anything on your land. If your trampoline blows over the fence, and kills the kid next door. YOUR FAULT. If your tree blows over and takes our my greenhouse. YOUR FAULT. If your excavations cause my house to fall down. YOUR FAULT. That is why i just would'nt bother talking to a neighbour like you. I'd be wasting my time and money. One conversation with you, and i be straight to court. When you have had your butt kicked by the judge, and had to pay all my legal costs your mind would be sharpened up very quickly. People like you have been ordered by courts to sell your house to pay legal fees, and compensation many times. Check out some case law, and open up your mind to the fact that, you may own the house, you may own the garden, but your actions, or lack of, can have serious financial consequences. I'm in the process of taking over a £100,000 off a neighbour like you. They will have to sell their house, and if i don't get it all, for a few hundread quid, i will force bankruptcy. I've got a feeling the guy is going to look back and think, perhaps he should not have been such a dick.

 

[JohnD]

You're very aggressive.

When you've calmed down, answer this:

People have a responsibility to maintain any trees on their property.

says who

 

[bernardgreen]

The legal framework
Under both the civil law and criminal law, an owner of land on which a tree stands
has responsibilities for the health and safety of those on or near the land and has
potential liabilities arising from the falling of a tree or branch. the civil law gives rise
to duties and potential liabilities to pay damages in the event of a breach of those
duties. the criminal law gives rise to the risk of prosecution in the event of an
infringement of the criminal law.
The civil law
the owner of the land on which a tree stands, together with any party who has
control over the tree’s management, owes a duty of care at common law to all
people who might be injured by the tree. the duty of care is to take reasonable care
to avoid acts or omissions that cause a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury to persons
or property.

The link to the whole document is HERE

 

[JohnD]

And can you find in it a paragraph in it supporting this claim:

People have a responsibility to maintain any trees on their property.

Which is NOT the same as defining liability in the rare event of an accident.

As you've noticed, your document is not a law. Perhaps you can find a case where a person was found liable for failing to maintain a tree where no incident occurred. I think not.

 

[bernardgreen]

A tree on land owned by a friend fell into the public highway blocking a busy road into the village.

The council held her responsible for their costs in removing the tree citing her failure to ensure the safety of people and vehicles using the highway by not ensuring the tree was safe.

In this case the council had to back down before it went to court when the owner proved that she had already applied to the council for permission to remove the tree ( It had a Tree Protection Order) as it was known to be at risk of collapse due to internal rot.