Re: Wind Damage - Fallen Branch - Neighbour threatening legal action
- From: Peter <peterwn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:14:28 +1200
Palindr?me wrote:
>
> You snipped the bit where I said that my sources were local
> authority web sites.
>
> Several mentioned the requirement for regular inspections at
> 1-3 year periodicity. This appeared to be aimed at normal
> householders. Several also mentioned the need under common
> law to do so.
> the forest of dean (http://www.fdean.gov.uk), forestry
> commission, et al.
>
> Inspections
>
> "Landowners are responsible for all trees within the
> boundary of their property. They have a duty to maintain the
> trees in a safe condition. To discharge this duty an owner
> must ensure the trees are inspected regularly for any signs
> that they are unsafe. The importance of regular, detailed
> inspections is to minimise the likelihood of damage or
> injury occurring if the tree or parts of it were to fall. If
> the risk is high, e.g. a large old tree next to a road, the
> importance is much greater. An owner without specialist
> knowledge would be expected to employ a suitably experienced
> and qualified arboriculturist/tree surgeon to inspect them
> every 1 to 3 years depending on the degree of risk."
>
> They may all, of course, be wrong in law.
If the local council where the OP lives publicises this, then it may have
legal weight. If it has not been general practice for householders to
regularly check trees there is probably no legal duty of care on
householders to do this. A higher duty of care may well be required of
those who administer public lands containing trees or those in commercial
or industrial situations, especially to meet workplace health and safety
requirements.
>
<Snip>
>
> AFAIK, insurers will not cover tree maintenance
Agreed
> and loss
> adjustors will be very keen to point out that the damage was
> caused by lack of maintenance rather than storm damage - at
> least in part.
Yes, as the loss adjuster's job is to present appropriate fact and opinion
to the client (insurance company). 'Lack of maintenance' would be an
opinion.
> A fractional payout and a typical excess may
> not be worth a lot and the matter could drag on for ages.
> Meanwhile, if the neighbour did complain to the council,
> they could be sending someone around today.
If insurance companies were concerned about such payouts, they would
publicise such concerns to customers and require regular tree maintenance
as a policy condition.
With any incident of this nature, both parties should generally involve
insurers from the word 'go' and let them sort it out as far as possible
since this gives the insurer a chance to mitigate the cost of remedying the
situation eg getting someone in before the Council acts (assuming the
Council is empowered to clean up tree damage involving private people).
The outcome may not be a good as if a skilful householder knowlegable of
the law handled it himself, but it significantly reduces stress and
tension.
>
>
> The OP didn't say that the neighbour was seeking
> compensation for the damage already caused. I would get the
> matter dealt with quickly before lawyers starting suggesting
> what he could claim for..or before another bit of the tree
> fell off.
>
.
- References:
- Wind Damage - Fallen Branch - Neighbour threatening legal action
- From: gary_wales
- Re: Wind Damage - Fallen Branch - Neighbour threatening legal action
- From: Palindr☻me
- Re: Wind Damage - Fallen Branch - Neighbour threatening legal action
- From: Peter
- Re: Wind Damage - Fallen Branch - Neighbour threatening legal action
- From: Palindr☻me
- Wind Damage - Fallen Branch - Neighbour threatening legal action
- Prev by Date: Re: Menezes shooting: Police Lies Exposed
- Next by Date: Re: Banking; Cheques; Complex legal claim; damages for loss of opportunity namely right to sue.
- Previous by thread: Re: Wind Damage - Fallen Branch - Neighbour threatening legal action
- Next by thread: Re: Wind Damage - Fallen Branch - Neighbour threatening legal action
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|