"marie" wrote in message
...

marie Wrote:
No, THEY WERE NOT.
Today i had a meeting with the council enviromental officer (the
supervisor of the person that done the damage) and a representative
of
the manufacturers of the weedkiller.
I now know the weedkiller is called Touche.
It's 2 main ingredients are GLYPHOSATE and DIURON.
The council man said it was a contact herbicide, yet the rep of the
maker said it was contact as well as systemic herbicide.

Your council man does not know his brass from his oboe.
There is plenty of reading matter on the web which makes it quite
plain that glyphosate is a translocating herbicide.

Now i am confused, i thought it had to be one or the other...not
both?
They both refused to take responsibility for the damage, they said
Drift had not caused them to die.
Just for my own peace of mind i took the liberty of recording this
conversation today. I did not tell them i was recording it.
It seems the only way i am going to get close to resolving this is
to
have some of the conifers analysed, but even then they might say it
wasn't their man that done it.
Is it worth dragging it all through the small claims court, or is
that
the approach they want me to take, and just dont bother.
This council is renowned for not admitting to anything they do
wrong.

I really dont know what to do for the best.
Thank you for all the supportive replies, it's very much
appreciated.

If you subscribe to "Which", you might be able to persuade them to
take up the cudgels on your behalf. They win far more frequently than
they lose.

Franz