|
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
Has anybody had any experience of compelling a neighbour to remove a
dangerous tree? The tree is a massive euclaypt in the backyard of my neighbour's terrace house. Most of the tree overhangs my back yard. On two previous occasions branches have fallen into my yard - one damaging the corner of the back verandah. In today's wind a small branch fell on a friend's head. She had to go to casualty, but is bruised only. The neighbour has been, and still is, uncooperative. Incredibly, Council says I can remove branches that overhang and are less than 10 cm in diameter, but that's it. Brilliant! I can remove those that might hurt but not those that would maim or kill. Surely there must be a procedure for getting a court order for the removal of a manifestly dangerous tree - regardless of the wishes of my neighbour and Council? Relations with that neighbour (and only that neighbour) are already hopeless, so there is no point in discussing the matter yet again. Has anybody had this experience of dealing with a hopeless neighbour and council? I live in NSW. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
Has anybody had any experience of compelling a neighbour to remove a dangerous tree? The tree is a massive euclaypt in the backyard of my neighbour's terrace house. Most of the tree overhangs my back yard. On two previous occasions branches have fallen into my yard - one damaging the corner of the back verandah. In today's wind a small branch fell on a friend's head. She had to go to casualty, but is bruised only. The neighbour has been, and still is, uncooperative. Incredibly, Council says I can remove branches that overhang and are less than 10 cm in diameter, but that's it. Brilliant! I can remove those that might hurt but not those that would maim or kill. Surely there must be a procedure for getting a court order for the removal of a manifestly dangerous tree - regardless of the wishes of my neighbour and Council? Relations with that neighbour (and only that neighbour) are already hopeless, so there is no point in discussing the matter yet again. ** You are in luck - pal. Recently, a new law came into force in NSW called the " Trees ( Disputes Between Neighbours ) Act 2006. " http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...t/tbna2006363/ Cases are heard by the Land and Environment Court. Failure to comply with an order made by the same Court can incur a $100,000 fine. Only problem is, YOU gotta convince the Court that tree is menace. Lotsa luck. ...... Phil |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
"Phil Allison" ** You are in luck - pal. Recently, a new law came into force in NSW called the " Trees ( Disputes Between Neighbours ) Act 2006. " http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...t/tbna2006363/ Cases are heard by the Land and Environment Court. Failure to comply with an order made by the same Court can incur a $100,000 fine. Only problem is, YOU gotta convince the Court that tree is menace. ** Just a quick thought - if you can convince the LEC that THAT eucalypt is *INFESTED* with drop bears game 100% over - pal. .... Phil |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
g'day,
sadly this is the end resuts of the stupidity of council regulations and "the save the trees" campagne (as far as i now this has been policy down sydney way for a very long time). not even in brissy can you remove dangerous gum trees (and in suburbia they are all dangerous, just look at recent storms here in brissy). and in the case of brissy the mayor has said there will be no relaxing of the policy only trees that they deem pose a risk will be removed, even with all the evidence that at least 80% of home damage was from falling trees and major limbs most of them being gum trees. so i guess the advice is if you don't want to live with the danger these trees pose, then don't buy a property that has them or is near them. the minimum safe distance from these trees is their full grown height + 50%, so for a tree that reachs 50 meters heigh then you need minimum of 75 meters space, for me 100% is the minimum. i lived in rural and even at that there are no guarantees. the sad fact is gum trees and suburbia don't mix. when will a gum tree fall over or drop a major limb?? when nature chooses for it to do so! as many do this when there is no storm or wind involved. snipped With peace and brightest of blessings, len & bev -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.lensgarden.com.au/ |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:54:35 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote: Has anybody had any experience of compelling a neighbour to remove a dangerous tree? The tree is a massive euclaypt in the backyard of my neighbour's terrace house. Most of the tree overhangs my back yard. On two previous occasions branches have fallen into my yard - one damaging the corner of the back verandah. In today's wind a small branch fell on a friend's head. She had to go to casualty, but is bruised only. The neighbour has been, and still is, uncooperative. Incredibly, Council says I can remove branches that overhang and are less than 10 cm in diameter, but that's it. Brilliant! I can remove those that might hurt but not those that would maim or kill. Surely there must be a procedure for getting a court order for the removal of a manifestly dangerous tree - regardless of the wishes of my neighbour and Council? Relations with that neighbour (and only that neighbour) are already hopeless, so there is no point in discussing the matter yet again. ** You are in luck - pal. Recently, a new law came into force in NSW called the " Trees ( Disputes Between Neighbours ) Act 2006. " http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...t/tbna2006363/ Cases are heard by the Land and Environment Court. Failure to comply with an order made by the same Court can incur a $100,000 fine. Only problem is, YOU gotta convince the Court that tree is menace. Lotsa luck. Phil Thanks Phil. Sounds a useful act. Friend sent to major hospital for a CatScan, but probably nothing more than a depressed fracture to the outer part of the skull - brain not touched. The tree has a history of being a danger to life and limb. Off to a solicitor on Monday to explore what evidence needs to be collected. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:21:11 +0000, len gardener wrote:
g'day, sadly this is the end resuts of the stupidity of council regulations and "the save the trees" campagne (as far as i now this has been policy down sydney way for a very long time). not even in brissy can you remove dangerous gum trees (and in suburbia they are all dangerous, just look at recent storms here in brissy). As someone who has a major gum tree in the back yard, I always look closely at tv pictures of fallen trees. 99% are inappropriate trees for the condition. A lot are effectively planted in "pots", aka soil area too small that the tree can not prevent itself from falling over. Mine is one of a group of five that save me an enormous amount of money for electricty for air conditioning. when will a gum tree fall over or drop a major limb?? when nature chooses for it to do so! as many do this when there is no storm or wind involved. Except in high wind, all the branches that drop off mine drop straight down. Now, as to why anyone would stand downwind of any tree in high winds, who knows. Nor do I understand how someone (both sides) can put in a pool, then expect me to pay thousands of dollars to cut down my tree because it puts leaves in their pool. both mine are natural trees for the area and the big one ot the back certainly predates any housing in the area. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
wrote in message
... On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:54:35 +1100, "Phil Allison" wrote: Has anybody had any experience of compelling a neighbour to remove a dangerous tree? The tree is a massive euclaypt in the backyard of my neighbour's terrace house. Most of the tree overhangs my back yard. On two previous occasions branches have fallen into my yard - one damaging the corner of the back verandah. In today's wind a small branch fell on a friend's head. She had to go to casualty, but is bruised only. The neighbour has been, and still is, uncooperative. Incredibly, Council says I can remove branches that overhang and are less than 10 cm in diameter, but that's it. Brilliant! I can remove those that might hurt but not those that would maim or kill. Surely there must be a procedure for getting a court order for the removal of a manifestly dangerous tree - regardless of the wishes of my neighbour and Council? Relations with that neighbour (and only that neighbour) are already hopeless, so there is no point in discussing the matter yet again. ** You are in luck - pal. Recently, a new law came into force in NSW called the " Trees ( Disputes Between Neighbours ) Act 2006. " http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...t/tbna2006363/ Cases are heard by the Land and Environment Court. Failure to comply with an order made by the same Court can incur a $100,000 fine. Only problem is, YOU gotta convince the Court that tree is menace. Lotsa luck. Phil Thanks Phil. Sounds a useful act. Friend sent to major hospital for a CatScan, but probably nothing more than a depressed fracture to the outer part of the skull - brain not touched. File a claim on the neighbours insurance and send the medical bill to them. You're own insurer should be able to track them down if the neighbour is not forthcoming with the details. Worth the excess claim. The tree has a history of being a danger to life and limb. All the more reason to get your neighbours insurance company involved. They'll find a way to encourage the neighbour to do something premiums or an exclusion. Off to a solicitor on Monday to explore what evidence needs to be collected. Yep. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:52:01 +1100, terryc
wrote: snipped As someone who has a major gum tree in the back yard, I always look closely at tv pictures of fallen trees. might need to look closer, most of these trees as in most cases are trees that predate the homes they fell on. these trees where sleectively left when the estate was created. no gum tree is suited to be near housing. most homes are in the what you may call new catagory. typical of what happens when those types just have to build a home among the gum trees. like your neighbours "bad choices" 99% are inappropriate trees for the condition. A lot are effectively planted in "pots", aka soil area too small that the tree can not prevent itself from falling over. how can that be in these cases and lots of cases i see wher this damage occurs as regular as when ther are gum trees to near homes. snipped Except in high wind, all the branches that drop off mine drop straight down. Now, as to why anyone would stand downwind of any tree in high winds, who knows. when a storm or big blow comes the direction of the wind is out of your control so anywhere can be down wind. you get cyclone or tornado type storms the wind comes in all directions. many a person has suffered various injuries to death from branches that fall straight down, that just adds the their potential to harm. Nor do I understand how someone (both sides) can put in a pool, then expect me to pay thousands of dollars to cut down my tree because it puts leaves in their pool. another case of home owners making bad choices is all that is. both mine are natural trees for the area and the big one ot the back certainly predates any housing in the area. no doubt as you say but when will it fall or do damge to property or person?? only nature can tell ter are no iron clad guarantees. it is not a matter of "if" it is a matter of "when". i've seen gum's in the middle of a paddock been ther all their life, standing straight and tall and when suits they fall over. as much as i love gum trees forests of them they are not suited to suburbia in any shape or form. sadly the original poste may very well chase good money after bad going to the legal eagles (the only real winners) and at the end of the day after much money has been sucked up the tree will likley still be standing. unless the neighbour owner of the tree can see sense then they need coucnil approval, and that's another story. With peace and brightest of blessings, len & bev -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.lensgarden.com.au/ |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:37:02 +0000, len gardener wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:52:01 +1100, terryc wrote: snipped As someone who has a major gum tree in the back yard, I always look closely at tv pictures of fallen trees. might need to look closer, most of these trees as in most cases are trees that predate the homes they fell on. Not the ones I've seen on TV. Obviously not endemic. Can only remember a few where it cam from neighbouring bushand. how can that be in these cases and lots of cases i see wher this damage occurs as regular as when ther are gum trees to near homes. snipped Except in high wind, all the branches that drop off mine drop straight down. Now, as to why anyone would stand downwind of any tree in high winds, who knows. when a storm or big blow comes the direction of the wind is out of your control so anywhere can be down wind. you get cyclone or tornado type storms the wind comes in all directions. Correct, but what silly buggers walks out side and stands downwind to see if the tree is going to drop a branch? many a person has suffered various injuries to death from branches that fall straight down, that just adds the their potential to harm. Yep, usually camped under them. no doubt as you say but when will it fall or do damge to property or person?? only nature can tell ter are no iron clad guarantees. it is not a matter of "if" it is a matter of "when". So long as the roots are not disturbed, should be able to die and drop. Being in the yard, it will probably be time to spring a loan for demolition and gain a big load of firewood. sadly the original poste may very well chase good money after bad going to the legal eagles (the only real winners) and at the end of the day after much money has been sucked up the tree will likley still be standing. unless the neighbour owner of the tree can see sense then they need coucnil approval, and that's another story. Around here, you just need to express a fear that it might fall and council is all keen to allow you to remove it. Also very easy to get a dodgy arborist to say it is "bad". I've lost track of the number of "termite infected" trees that have come down locally and, oh dear, absolutely solid trunk. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
|
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
I had to laugh when I again phoned the council's tree preservation officer to find out whether council could order the tree's removal. The officer evaded the question, but rabbited on about conservation principles, sustainability, negotiation, etc.. When I mentioned the relevance of serious personal injury and the 2006 Act she said "Oh, we don't like residents to pursue that course of action." I hung up on this irrelavant and patronising user of the royal 'we'. ** Is this another case of putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank ?? ..... Phil |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
|
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
wrote in message ... On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:03:51 +1100, wrote: Has anybody had any experience of compelling a neighbour to remove a dangerous tree? The tree is a massive euclaypt in the backyard of my neighbour's terrace house. Most of the tree overhangs my back yard. On two previous occasions branches have fallen into my yard - one damaging the corner of the back verandah. In today's wind a small branch fell on a friend's head. She had to go to casualty, but is bruised only. The neighbour has been, and still is, uncooperative. Incredibly, Council says I can remove branches that overhang and are less than 10 cm in diameter, but that's it. Brilliant! I can remove those that might hurt but not those that would maim or kill. Surely there must be a procedure for getting a court order for the removal of a manifestly dangerous tree - regardless of the wishes of my neighbour and Council? Relations with that neighbour (and only that neighbour) are already hopeless, so there is no point in discussing the matter yet again. Has anybody had this experience of dealing with a hopeless neighbour and council? I live in NSW. Thanks for the various comments. Given that the tree has already damaged my property (smashed in the bathroom ceiling two years ago) and now hospitalised (albeit for only 10 hours) a visitor to my back yard - the lawyer says the case is a lay down misere for removal under the 2006 Act mentioned by Phil. In response to one poster, yes I know I can make property insurance claims (and have in the case of the bathroom), but now we are risking making life insurance claims. There is nowhere in my back yard that is not overhung by the offending tree. Because of the lean of the tree, about 60% of the tree overhangs my yard and another 20% even overhangs the yard of the next door neighbour furthest from the tree. She too wants the tree removed, so we will have a dual action. Evidently the 2006 act was introduced because of the dangerous delays and recalcitrance of Councils when it came to giving permission for the removal of manifestly dangerous trees. I had to laugh when I again phoned the council's tree preservation officer to find out whether council could order the tree's removal. The officer evaded the question, but rabbited on about conservation principles, sustainability, negotiation, etc.. When I mentioned the relevance of serious personal injury and the 2006 Act she said "Oh, we don't like residents to pursue that course of action." I hung up on this irrelavant and patronising user of the royal 'we'. I had a similar problem with a neighbour who had leaky storm-water drains. His water was percolating under my house. I proved this by secretly pouring a strong blue dye into his spouting, and then observing a blue colour welling up from the soil under my floorboards. Instead of raising hell by going to lawyers, who will keep a contention going for as long as the money lasts, I contacted a local architect who agreed to liaise with the neighbour on my behalf and to explain the problem. The neighbour agreed for me to fix the problem by having my plumbers enter the that property and bypass the errant drain (and surreptitiously pour a some concrete down the old porous hole). I paid for everything including the architect ($150.00), the plumber ($200.00), and some sections of PVC conduit ($50.00). All this was a mere bagatelle when compared with lawyers, and time and frustration when done the other way. I would suggest you offer to pay 1/2 the tree removal costs, and failing results there, offer to pay all the costs. It's all very sad, but there's no other way. Note too that will build credit with the neighbour, and keep money out of lawyer's pockets. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
Peter Jason wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:03:51 +1100, wrote: Has anybody had any experience of compelling a neighbour to remove a dangerous tree? The tree is a massive euclaypt in the backyard of my neighbour's terrace house. Most of the tree overhangs my back yard. On two previous occasions branches have fallen into my yard - one damaging the corner of the back verandah. In today's wind a small branch fell on a friend's head. She had to go to casualty, but is bruised only. The neighbour has been, and still is, uncooperative. Incredibly, Council says I can remove branches that overhang and are less than 10 cm in diameter, but that's it. Brilliant! I can remove those that might hurt but not those that would maim or kill. Surely there must be a procedure for getting a court order for the removal of a manifestly dangerous tree - regardless of the wishes of my neighbour and Council? Relations with that neighbour (and only that neighbour) are already hopeless, so there is no point in discussing the matter yet again. Has anybody had this experience of dealing with a hopeless neighbour and council? I live in NSW. Thanks for the various comments. Given that the tree has already damaged my property (smashed in the bathroom ceiling two years ago) and now hospitalised (albeit for only 10 hours) a visitor to my back yard - the lawyer says the case is a lay down misere for removal under the 2006 Act mentioned by Phil. In response to one poster, yes I know I can make property insurance claims (and have in the case of the bathroom), but now we are risking making life insurance claims. There is nowhere in my back yard that is not overhung by the offending tree. Because of the lean of the tree, about 60% of the tree overhangs my yard and another 20% even overhangs the yard of the next door neighbour furthest from the tree. She too wants the tree removed, so we will have a dual action. Evidently the 2006 act was introduced because of the dangerous delays and recalcitrance of Councils when it came to giving permission for the removal of manifestly dangerous trees. I had to laugh when I again phoned the council's tree preservation officer to find out whether council could order the tree's removal. The officer evaded the question, but rabbited on about conservation principles, sustainability, negotiation, etc.. When I mentioned the relevance of serious personal injury and the 2006 Act she said "Oh, we don't like residents to pursue that course of action." I hung up on this irrelavant and patronising user of the royal 'we'. I had a similar problem with a neighbour who had leaky storm-water drains. His water was percolating under my house. I proved this by secretly pouring a strong blue dye into his spouting, and then observing a blue colour welling up from the soil under my floorboards. Instead of raising hell by going to lawyers, who will keep a contention going for as long as the money lasts, I contacted a local architect who agreed to liaise with the neighbour on my behalf and to explain the problem. The neighbour agreed for me to fix the problem by having my plumbers enter the that property and bypass the errant drain (and surreptitiously pour a some concrete down the old porous hole). I paid for everything including the architect ($150.00), the plumber ($200.00), and some sections of PVC conduit ($50.00). All this was a mere bagatelle when compared with lawyers, and time and frustration when done the other way. I would suggest you offer to pay 1/2 the tree removal costs, and failing results there, offer to pay all the costs. It's all very sad, but there's no other way. Note too that will build credit with the neighbour, and keep money out of lawyer's pockets. This is from the original post - "Surely there must be a procedure for getting a court order for the removal of a manifestly dangerous tree - regardless of the wishes of my neighbour and Council? Relations with that neighbour (and only that neighbour) are already hopeless, so there is no point in discussing the matter yet again." Since it was apparently no possibility of negotiating with the neighbour or the Council, some legal mechanism was requested. Sometimes there is no practical option but to deal with a lawyer. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:17:08 +1100, "Peter Jason"
wrote: snipped I would suggest you offer to pay 1/2 the tree removal costs, and failing results there, offer to pay all the costs. It's all very sad, but there's no other way. Note too that will build credit with the neighbour, and keep money out of lawyer's pockets. It's not all very sad. There is another way - the 2006 Act. If the Land and Environment court finds in our favour then failure to remove the tree incurs a fine of up to $100,000 (or thereabouts - I don't have the act in front of me). No point in trying to build credit with the neighbour from Hell. BTW, in case you think I might also be the neighbour from Hell then let me say that I consider all my other neighbours to be from Heaven. It is because of my hellish neighbour's recalcitrance over the years that my friend could have been killed, but mercifully was only hospitalised with a 'boggy patch' on top of the skull - that's what casualty called it, before sending her off by ambulance for a CAT scan. Because the tree is massive, dangerous and hemmed in by houses and yards, the cost for removal is going to run into thousands. I would rather pay lawyers than practice self help. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
wrote in message ... On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:17:08 +1100, "Peter Jason" wrote: snipped I would suggest you offer to pay 1/2 the tree removal costs, and failing results there, offer to pay all the costs. It's all very sad, but there's no other way. Note too that will build credit with the neighbour, and keep money out of lawyer's pockets. It's not all very sad. There is another way - the 2006 Act. If the Land and Environment court finds in our favour then failure to remove the tree incurs a fine of up to $100,000 (or thereabouts - I don't have the act in front of me). No point in trying to build credit with the neighbour from Hell. BTW, in case you think I might also be the neighbour from Hell then let me say that I consider all my other neighbours to be from Heaven. It is because of my hellish neighbour's recalcitrance over the years that my friend could have been killed, but mercifully was only hospitalised with a 'boggy patch' on top of the skull - that's what casualty called it, before sending her off by ambulance for a CAT scan. Because the tree is massive, dangerous and hemmed in by houses and yards, the cost for removal is going to run into thousands. I would rather pay lawyers than practice self help. Then do so; but try and get one who has had *specific* experience with trees and neighbours and there are court records detailing the experience of others. http://www.rurallaw.org.au/handbook/xml/ http://www.access.prov.vic.gov.au/pu...OVguide016.jsp http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...and%20easement http://www.austlii.edu.au/forms/search1.html?& Not all lawyers are created equal, and be sure you don't get stuck with a legal university student. Get a quote from the lawyer (NOT an "estimate"), or,preferably, do the no-win-no-fee thing. I have survived to tell thee. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
Peter Jason wrote:
I have survived to tell thee. Even though you don't bother to read all the given facts. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
"TomTom" wrote in message ... Peter Jason wrote: I have survived to tell thee. Even though you don't bother to read all the given facts. I should, but it's difficult because lawyers are so verbose. Can't you structure your documents to allow speed reading? |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:41:10 +1100, quick wrote:
Because the tree is massive, dangerous and hemmed in by houses and yards, the cost for removal is going to run into thousands. I would rather pay lawyers than practice self help. No one is suggesting that you remove it yourself,although I believe that legally you are entitled to remove what normally overhangs your fence, so long as removal does not endanger the tree/make the situation worse. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:13:35 +1100, terryc
wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:41:10 +1100, quick wrote: Because the tree is massive, dangerous and hemmed in by houses and yards, the cost for removal is going to run into thousands. I would rather pay lawyers than practice self help. No one is suggesting that you remove it yourself,although I believe that legally you are entitled to remove what normally overhangs your fence, so long as removal does not endanger the tree/make the situation worse. In fact somebody was suggesting just that - I pay for removal of the tree in my neighbour's yard. Council will only allow me to prune the non-lethal 10 cm branches, not the lethal ones. I think you have missed critical points in the thread. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:15:31 +1100, quick wrote:
No one is suggesting that you remove it yourself,although I believe that legally you are entitled to remove what normally overhangs your fence, so long as removal does not endanger the tree/make the situation worse. In fact somebody was suggesting just that - I pay for removal of the tree in my neighbour's yard. Two different things. AFAIK, legally, you can hire a cherry picker and trim the branches where they cross your boundary fence, in normal conditions. so you are not allowed to waituntil more of it bends over in a wind and then cut it off or reach over the boundary fence to trim it iff. Council will only allow me to prune the non-lethal 10 cm branches, not the lethal ones. Unless your council is a particularly strong on tree conservation, a WRITTEN letter recounting your experiences and requesting action should get a change in attitude. Our local council has a tree preservation policy, but "dieseased, termites, old, dropping limbs", etc are word that it accepts as reasons to demolish. I think you have missed critical points in the thread. Maybe. You haven't said anything about the age of the tree. As I've said, I have a lovely very large gum tree in the back of my yard and frankly, it ****es of three neighbours, two side by side with pools and one(+?) atross the road as leaves end up on his lawn(S)/verge. I keep saying to the ones side by side, well what silly ******* installs a swimming pool under a gum tree that is far older than all the houses around. Anyway, if it is an old gum tree, then you may just have to accept that you have learnt something and put up with it or sell up and move. OTOH, I suggest that you send a registered letter to council making them aware of your concerns. 1) Put it in writing. 2) Send it registered. Councils can conveniently loose correspondence when it suits. The purpose of registered is that you can prove you had previously informed council of the dangers. Useful if you decide to seek compensation from council for damage, etc. 3) and/or seek legal advice. If your neighbour isn't cooperative, then you have to follow the alternatves. Beforehand, try to find some stuff on dispute resolution as trees seem tobe a major neighbour dispute point. you'll probably have to show that you have made attempts to approach your neighbour about the matter. If the tree fell on your house less than seven years ago() and yo paid for repairs, then you can probably made a civil claim for damages. However, if he claims that he can not trim it beause of council regs, then you then need to go after council, which will cover its arse by saying "we didn't know about the problem". Hence my suggestion of nw making them aware in a written registered letter in case of any future problems. Otherwise |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
Sorry to butt in. My question is sort of related.
I have two large trees in my front garden (we are only on a 1/8 acre block (semi), and these trees have grown so high and so wide around the trunk that they are pressing against the verandah decking, so would like to remove them and replace them with something else that won't grow so tall. I am looking around for tree workers (can be 1 or 2 only even). My question is, are all tree loppers have to be licensed, so I know what to look for? Thanks as always for any help. Katherine On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:41:10 +1100, quick wrote: Because the tree is massive, dangerous and hemmed in by houses and yards, the cost for removal is going to run into thousands. I would rather pay lawyers than practice self help. |
compelling neighbour 2
When you mention also the words "dangerous", "could cause injury or even
death" and the S word - "suing (maybe the council for not giving approval for removal) - they quickly think differently. Good luck with it. Katherine Our local council has a tree preservation policy, but "dieseased, termites, old, dropping limbs", etc are word that it accepts as reasons to demolish. |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
it might be better money spent arranging with neighbour for you to pay
for and remove the tree (once you have council permission that is!). we know someone up here had similar situation to you and that is how they got around it, they had to also pay for stump grinding and any repair to fences, gardens and lawns. there is always the chance when you negotiate a deal like this that the neighbour may come to the party in some degree? money spent in the courts and on lawyers is "good money after bad" the only winners usually the legal system. On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:15:31 +1100, wrote: snipped With peace and brightest of blessings, len & bev -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.lensgarden.com.au/ |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
"len gardener" it might be better money spent arranging with neighbour for you to pay for and remove the tree (once you have council permission that is!). ** Did you even read the original post ? Relations between the OP and his neighbour are at rock bottom. we know someone up here had similar situation to you and that is how they got around it, ** Blah, blah blah .... Arguing from an isolated example that you know about and others do not is idiotic. they had to also pay for stump grinding and any repair to fences, gardens and lawns. ** Madness. Does he also pay part of the neighbour's rates and tax bills ?? money spent in the courts and on lawyers is "good money after bad" the only winners usually the legal system. ** Often there is NO alternative except to invoke the court process *designed* for settling intractable disputes between parties. Been working OK for the last few centuries. ...... Phil |
compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree
Been working
OK for the last few centuries. ..... Phil Ha....?....! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter