Jump to content

Clifton wharf scary


mrsmelly

Featured Posts

Just now, Jennifer McM said:

Must admit, my husband is at this moment going through our insurance details.... ?

You need to look closely for sure, fully comp will cover repairs i guess but living elsewhere while that is happening will cost.

If they were ever thinking about having the boat stretched then now is the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike Hurley said:

You need to look closely for sure, fully comp will cover repairs i guess but living elsewhere while that is happening will cost.

If they were ever thinking about having the boat stretched then now is the time. 

Going to send the article to our insurers GJW, just to make sure we're fully covered. Their reply could be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mike Hurley said:

You need to look closely for sure, fully comp will cover repairs i guess but living elsewhere while that is happening will cost.

If they were ever thinking about having the boat stretched then now is the time. 

I think it has been

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this whole concept of  crowd funding wierd. It seems not to be based on need but on news worthiness. If a tree fellon my house I might well experience as much fear, disruption to my life and any other emotive term you might use. If I were not fully insured I would also suffer every bit as much financial loss.  As a life long socialist (nothing to do with politics) I'm getting more and more disillusioned with this belief that the world ( for the word world read compensation culture) owes everyone a living.

 

Rant over

Edited by Slim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

 

Widening the discussion, is anyone considered responsible for trees that fall like this, or are such incidents considered an Act of God?

 

I'm wondering if the owners of RAVENSDALE (or their insurers) have any claim in law against the owner of the tree, or whether the owner has an automatic defence that it was an Act of God.

  

When I moored at Clifton the owners took the view that if I was worried about the stability of any trees I was free to employ my own tree surgeon to fix whatever my concern was, and the state of the trees was none of their concern.  Might this policy come back and bite them on the bum in the case of RAVENSDALE?

 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Add a bit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Widening the discussion, is anyone considered responsible for trees that fall like this, or are such incidents considered an Act of God?

 

I'm wondering if the owners of RAVENSDALE (or their insurers) have any claim in law against the owner of the tree, or whether the owner has an automatic defence that it was an Act of God.

  

When I moored at Clifton the owners took the view that if I was worried about the stability of any trees I was free to employ my own tree surgeon to fix whatever my concern was, and the state of the trees was none of their concern.  Might this policy come back and bite them on the bum in the case of RAVENSDALE?

 

 

 

Depends...

 

An owner has a responsibility to ensure their trees are safe, this responsibility has to be reasonable 

 

Reasonable depends to a degree on targets and the owners.

 

It is reasonable for a householder, for example, to simply monitor the tree and call in an "expert" if anything concerns them

 

A large landowner (farmer/large estate) is expected to be more proactive, maybe have regular surveys by themselves and record the information and act on any concerns or employ a knowledgeable person to do this survey.

 

A council or CRT for example is expected to have a more formal process of a recorded survey by an appropriate person, plus a process to follow up on the concerns.

 

The processes or appropriate persons are not really formally defined in law, there is guidance and various courses.

 

Assuming the landowner can show they have been reasonable in the management or the risks and the failure can be seen as unforseen, it largely becomes an "act of god"

 

It is all about how appropriate the process is and how unforseen the failure was

 

All of the above is my rough interpretation, the situation is evolving all the time but it is basically correct 

 

 

Tbh the attitude you describe from Clifton is reckless, 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Depends...

 

An owner has a responsibility to ensure their trees are safe, this responsibility has to be reasonable 

 

Reasonable depends to a degree on targets and the owners.

 

It is reasonable for a householder, for example, to simply monitor the tree and call in an "expert" if anything concerns them

 

A large landowner (farmer/large estate) is expected to be more proactive, maybe have regular surveys by themselves and record the information and act on any concerns or employ a knowledgeable person to do this survey.

 

A council or CRT for example is expected to have a more formal process of a recorded survey by an appropriate person, plus a process to follow up on the concerns.

 

The processes or appropriate persons are not really formally defined in law, there is guidance and various courses.

 

Assuming the landowner can show they have been reasonable in the management or the risks and the failure can be seen as unforseen, it largely becomes an "act of god"

 

It is all about how appropriate the process is and how unforseen the failure was

 

All of the above is my rough interpretation, the situation is evolving all the time but it is basically correct 

 

 

Tbh the attitude you describe from Clifton is reckless, 

 

Fanx TM.

 

So it might hinge on whether the owners of RAVENSDALE had any concerns about the tree and had expressed those concerns to the management, Clifton being a small outfit, not a large organisation so not expected to do regular surveys.

 

Just to be clear RAVENSDALE is not my boat, I don't know the owners and I have no skin in the game. I'm just curious to know as I moor one of my boats under a very large ash tree, owned probably by CRT!  So it is likely that CRT actively monitor this tree from what you say.

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Fanx TM.

 

So it might hinge on whether the owners of RAVENSDALE had any concerns about the tree and had expressed those concerns to the management, Clifton being a small outfit, not a large organisation so not expected to do regular surveys.

 

Just to be clear RAVENSDALE is not my boat, I don't know the owners and I have no skin in the game. I'm just curious to know as I moor one of my boats under a very large ash tree, owned probably by CRT!  So it is likely that CRT actively monitor this tree from what you say.

 

 

I know CRT had a survey process in place, I was asked by a contractor to get involved at one point but was too busy, I assume it's still In place.

 

They will likely resurvey every 3 to 5yrs depending on the risk assessment but if you contact them they should reassess the tree as an individual, if they didn't and it failed, liabilities get a bit shaky.

 

I don't know Clifton but if they own the trees and concerns are being raised, I would suggest they need to act in some way, asking a customer to assess the tree is I would suggest unreasonable, if that is what they do, they have the main responsibility and as a business that provides a service to the public should have a robust process in place

 

It is fairly a standard understanding that with trees all risks cannot be removed and sometimes shit happens, it's how those risks are reduced that is important 

 

I will add, it can be really difficult to define ownership of boundary trees

 

Edited by tree monkey
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

Depends...

 

An owner has a responsibility to ensure their trees are safe, this responsibility has to be reasonable 

 

Reasonable depends to a degree on targets and the owners.

 

It is reasonable for a householder, for example, to simply monitor the tree and call in an "expert" if anything concerns them

 

A large landowner (farmer/large estate) is expected to be more proactive, maybe have regular surveys by themselves and record the information and act on any concerns or employ a knowledgeable person to do this survey.

 

A council or CRT for example is expected to have a more formal process of a recorded survey by an appropriate person, plus a process to follow up on the concerns.

 

The processes or appropriate persons are not really formally defined in law, there is guidance and various courses.

 

Assuming the landowner can show they have been reasonable in the management or the risks and the failure can be seen as unforseen, it largely becomes an "act of god"

 

It is all about how appropriate the process is and how unforseen the failure was

 

All of the above is my rough interpretation, the situation is evolving all the time but it is basically correct 

 

 

Tbh the attitude you describe from Clifton is reckless, 

But certainly not wreckless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Depends...

 

An owner has a responsibility to ensure their trees are safe, this responsibility has to be reasonable 

 

Reasonable depends to a degree on targets and the owners.

 

It is reasonable for a householder, for example, to simply monitor the tree and call in an "expert" if anything concerns them

 

A large landowner (farmer/large estate) is expected to be more proactive, maybe have regular surveys by themselves and record the information and act on any concerns or employ a knowledgeable person to do this survey.

 

A council or CRT for example is expected to have a more formal process of a recorded survey by an appropriate person, plus a process to follow up on the concerns.

 

The processes or appropriate persons are not really formally defined in law, there is guidance and various courses.

 

Assuming the landowner can show they have been reasonable in the management or the risks and the failure can be seen as unforseen, it largely becomes an "act of god"

 

It is all about how appropriate the process is and how unforseen the failure was

 

All of the above is my rough interpretation, the situation is evolving all the time but it is basically correct 

 

 

Tbh the attitude you describe from Clifton is reckless, 

About 5 or 6 years ago there was an accident 'just up the road' from us at a railway crossing.

The gates were closed and a line of traffic was waiting.

A huge tree branch fell on top of a car and killed the driver.

 

The local Estate were declared to be at fault for not maintaining their trees and they were taken to court and charged with manslaughter. It subsequently turned out that the Estate had identified the potential accident during their bi-annual tree survey and had previously written to the council requesting permission to lop the tree, permission was refused as it was considered to be an 'old tree' worthy of protection and a TPO was put on the tree and the Estate told not to 'touch it'.

 

It all seemed to go quiet after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.