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.
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.

"marie" wrote in message
...

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.

I don't believe taped conversations are admissable in court. Transcripts MAY
be.

Photos certainly are admissable.

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.

Are you a gambler by nature?

This council is renowned for not admitting to anything they do wrong.

They may, of course, believe that...
--
Brian
Sig: I have nothing to say

"Brian Watson" wrote in message
...

"marie" wrote in message
...

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.

I don't believe taped conversations are admissable in court.
Transcripts MAY
be.

Photos certainly are admissable.

******
Please do not say "certainly!". I was charged with parking my car
"half-on" a smashed-up kerb next to a high fence enclosing major
building works so thereby I was impeding the passage of foot passengers.
I pleaded that not only was the old pavement kerb out of use and broken
up, but I presented photographs which showed three people walking
abreast through the wide gap between car and fence, thereby clearly
showing that there was plenty of room to march an Army through the gap.
Their ruling was that since photographs can be manipulated they are not
acceptable in Courts of Law.
Those bar stewards found me guilty and fined me 40 quid.
Doug.
******

In article , marie marie.1b7l3o@n
ews.gardenbanter.co.uk writes

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.
Now i am confused, i thought it had to be one or the other...not both?

Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide. Don't know what Diuron is.
It's perfectly possibly to put two differently acting herbicides
together into the same weedkiller, though since a systemic herbicide
needs time to translocate to the roots, I'm not sure how you would put a
contact herbicide with it and not spoil that action.

I wonder if what the council man meant was that Glyphosate has to touch
the plant if it is to kill it - it can't leach through the soil.

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.

Take legal advice if you want to rely on the recording for later
evidence. I have an idea you're not allowed to record without telling
the other person (which is why we have to sit through so many telephone
preambles 'This call mey be recorded for training and quality assurance
purposes ...'

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 don't know about the chance of success in the small claims court, but
clearly atm they are hoping that you will just give up.

Pity it's not just before local elections. Well motivated councillors
can sometimes achieve miracles.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

Kay wrote in news:5ZjvWhAZFFJBFwB
:

This council is renowned for not admitting to anything they do wrong.

I don't know about the chance of success in the small claims court, but
clearly atm they are hoping that you will just give up.

Pity it's not just before local elections. Well motivated councillors
can sometimes achieve miracles.


Local newspapers can do a great deal to focus the attention of said
councillors, and are usually desperate for stories. Give them a ring and
see if they will print a photo of you standing in front of the damage.

Victoria
--
gardening on a north-facing hill
in South-East Cornwall
--

In article , Victoria
Clare writes
Kay wrote in news:5ZjvWhAZFFJBFwB
:

This council is renowned for not admitting to anything they do wrong.

I don't know about the chance of success in the small claims court, but
clearly atm they are hoping that you will just give up.

Pity it's not just before local elections. Well motivated councillors
can sometimes achieve miracles.


Local newspapers can do a great deal to focus the attention of said
councillors, and are usually desperate for stories. Give them a ring and
see if they will print a photo of you standing in front of the damage.

The procedure is:

1. Ring press, tell them you have story and councillor (1) will be
available for photo

2. Ring councillor and tell them press will be on hand for photo ;-)


(1) And if you're lucky enough to have a split ward, ring both (or all
3) councillors in turn and tell them that their opponent will be there
:-)
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Victoria
Clare writes
Kay wrote in news:5ZjvWhAZFFJBFwB
:

This council is renowned for not admitting to anything they do
wrong.

I don't know about the chance of success in the small claims
court, but
clearly atm they are hoping that you will just give up.

Pity it's not just before local elections. Well motivated
councillors
can sometimes achieve miracles.


Local newspapers can do a great deal to focus the attention of said
councillors, and are usually desperate for stories. Give them a
ring and
see if they will print a photo of you standing in front of the
damage.

The procedure is:

1. Ring press, tell them you have story and councillor (1) will be
available for photo

2. Ring councillor and tell them press will be on hand for photo ;-)


(1) And if you're lucky enough to have a split ward, ring both (or
all
3) councillors in turn and tell them that their opponent will be
there
:-)

Marie,
Please, please don't contemplate legal action. You will be the loser.
Please follow Kay's suggestion and keep us posted.

Franz

marie wrote

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.

Only you can know how important this is to you. If it were me, I'd
hold my head high, and then tell the entire world your point of view -
being careful not to slander/libel of course. It is presumably
perfectly true to say "The council deny that thier weedkiller was
responsible for the death of my trees a few weeks later". But then,
I'm not the sort to expect money FROM councils anyway.


This council is renowned for not admitting to anything they do wrong.
It is undoubtedly the case that they have resources for being bl**dy
awkward. Trained in it, yer local authority official.

From what you have written - which is , of course, your side of the
tale - it would appear that the prima face case of coincidence has not
been adequately explained by the other side of the arguement. Have
they even attempted to address it?


I really dont know what to do for the best.
I think you need some sort of expert advice, from someone independant
- anothre weedkiller manufacturer, a professinal horticulturalist.
Have you consdered asking the BBC consumer affairs programmes to get
involved? Or your local radio station? Or the citizens advice
beaureau? Snag is, time is rushing on and the evidence is getting
less obvious.



Thank you for all the supportive replies, it's very much appreciated.
In the end, I doubt you will win if they stick thier heels in. But
you can at least make thier life a misery for a bit, and they might be
a bit more responsible in future. A friend of mine has had his sumach
tree destroyed several times by contract verge cutters, and got
nowhere with complaints. But he persists.

In article ,
marie writes:
|
| 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.
| 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

Go and see a solicitor, but do check that there is a fixed (or zero)
fee for the initial discussion. Take a copy of the following pages:

http://www.chinese-pesticide.com/herbicides/diuron.htm
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn22/pn22p17a.htm
http://cropandsoil.oregonstate.edu/n...0405/weed.html

In particular "Mode of action Systemic herbicide, absorbed principally
by the roots, with translocation acropetally in the xylem.". The
cause of death is almost certainly overuse of the diuron, causing
run-off. Whether your solicitor advises you to proceed is another
matter, but he may well write a letter and the council may settle out
of court.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"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

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
| "marie" wrote in message
| ...
|
| 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.

However, (to a first approximation) glyphosate is not absorbed by
roots and does not transfer through soil. Diuron does both.

They were bullshitting, to try to avoid responsibility.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Thanks again for the replies and information.
If it's ok i'd like to keep this thread going as long as possible, in order to keep people updated on the present situation.
Right now, i am leaning towards sending off samples for analysis, i think it might be money well spent.
I will post any developments here.

Thanks again.

"marie" wrote in message
...

Nick Maclaren Wrote:
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
| "marie" wrote in message
| ...
|
| 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.

However, (to a first approximation) glyphosate is not absorbed by
roots and does not transfer through soil. Diuron does both.

They were bullshitting, to try to avoid responsibility.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Thanks again for the replies and information.
If it's ok i'd like to keep this thread going as long as possible, in
order to keep people updated on the present situation.
Right now, i am leaning towards sending off samples for analysis, i
think it might be money well spent.
I will post any developments here.

Thanks again.
marie

******
marie!.
You may remember me from way back when we occasionally crossed swords
in Alt politics.
(All in fun, of course! - oh yes!, - honest!.)
I have good friendly advice for you.
Do your best to help the conifers but bite the bullet by keeping away
from any kind of litigation, especially with Public Bodies and worse
still, legal vultures.
It's tough to do, but do it and sleep your normal eight hours in bed
without the problem constantly keeping you lying awake at five in the
morning with you unable to get it out of your mind.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but do it. You will get bouts of inner
rage now and then, but try to become calm in mind, and you will soon
stay calm. I promise you, - because I have recently had to do just
that.
Corporation Jobsworthies have developed well-tried techniques to
preserve their unsackable jobs against any foolish Public scrutiny, and
two words epitomise their solid defence barrier.
Silence is their assegai and pig-ignorance their spear. They simply
ignore your Solicitors letters and just refuse to answer.
They can deny you your Human Rights and can libel you in print without
ever having met you.
My status in the Community, my honesty, my clean-living ways and my
character have recently been impugned. Having properly raised two
families in impeccable fashion I now have a file of 24 papers
concerning the matter and the Solicitor wants me to brief Counsel in a
Firm who specialise . in Manchester.
Keep the pot a-boiling!. It's Jobs for the boys!, and Hey! keep the
money rolling in, lads!.
I have just written a cheque for 300 quid and told them to stuff it.
My case was a winner, the miscreants hadn't a leg to stand on but once
the Great Game started with the legal crooks briefed it soon got out of
hand without any progress being made. - As usual.
I should have known better.

Some years ago I brought a case against a rogue car repairer who tried
to charge me 1500 quid for a minor repair. The same Solicitor Firm
mentioned above took a year and a half dillying and dallying so I sacked
them and took on the case as a L.I.P. (Litigant in Person.) Got the
case before the Court in three weeks and no one on the opposite side
turned up to defend . I was awarded 1000 quid and costs and it broke the
finances of the repairer who went bankrupt, lost his mind, attempted
suicide and finished up in a Happy Farm.
I take no pleasure from that, because I sat for many years alongside his
father in a swing band.
Doug.