Crosswords2 mins ago
Harassment Order threat from Police
A few months ago a local tree surgeon, at the request of a neighbour, entered onto my property and lopped a beautiful tree leaving it completely one-sided and, in my opinion now possibly liable to blow down in high winds because most of the weight is now on one side of the tree leaving it unbalanced.
The lopping was illegal because the tree is in a Conservation Area so he should have got my permission and consent from the Council. He also loped well onto my side of the boundary so ignoring the 'trim to the boundary' convention.
I telephoned the business numbers and left four messages asking them to contact me to arrange a meeting to discuss the future of the tree. I also sent one email to them.
Today I received a call from the local Police telling me that I was harassing the owner of the tree surgery company and that, if I continued, they would issue a Harassment Order against me.
Whilst it's difficult to see how four 'phone messages and an email can constitute 'harassment' my question is, does the anti-harassment legislation that they are threatening me with apply to companies rather than individuals?
Thanks.
ER
Cheltenham
The lopping was illegal because the tree is in a Conservation Area so he should have got my permission and consent from the Council. He also loped well onto my side of the boundary so ignoring the 'trim to the boundary' convention.
I telephoned the business numbers and left four messages asking them to contact me to arrange a meeting to discuss the future of the tree. I also sent one email to them.
Today I received a call from the local Police telling me that I was harassing the owner of the tree surgery company and that, if I continued, they would issue a Harassment Order against me.
Whilst it's difficult to see how four 'phone messages and an email can constitute 'harassment' my question is, does the anti-harassment legislation that they are threatening me with apply to companies rather than individuals?
Thanks.
ER
Cheltenham
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ERChelt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I am presuming that the tree is planted on your property.
What a ruddy nerve .. he obviously told them some porkies .. eh?
Quite right .. trees in conservation area are automatically protected.
Trespass too.
I would sue his a$$ off for that.
I would also write to the local Police complainant address complaining that they had trespassed and damaged your property, and action was of conservation area rules, also asking why they had not investigated.
What a ruddy nerve .. he obviously told them some porkies .. eh?
Quite right .. trees in conservation area are automatically protected.
Trespass too.
I would sue his a$$ off for that.
I would also write to the local Police complainant address complaining that they had trespassed and damaged your property, and action was of conservation area rules, also asking why they had not investigated.
Prohibition of harassment..
(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—.
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and.
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other..
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other..
(3)Subsection DOES NOT APPLY TO A COURSE OF CONDUCT IF THE PERSON WHO PURSED IT SHOWS-.
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,.
(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or.
(c) *THAT IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE PURSUIT OF THE COURSE OF CONDUCT REASONABLE.*
(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—.
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and.
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other..
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other..
(3)Subsection DOES NOT APPLY TO A COURSE OF CONDUCT IF THE PERSON WHO PURSED IT SHOWS-.
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,.
(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or.
(c) *THAT IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE PURSUIT OF THE COURSE OF CONDUCT REASONABLE.*
What sort of tree is it?
Has there been any issues with your neighbour regarding this tree?
Does the tree have a TPO on it?
Are you absolutely positive the company entered your property to do this?
Are you absolutely positive it was that company and not another? I assume your house was unoccupied at the time.
Has there been any issues with your neighbour regarding this tree?
Does the tree have a TPO on it?
Are you absolutely positive the company entered your property to do this?
Are you absolutely positive it was that company and not another? I assume your house was unoccupied at the time.
exdc ... Hi
If that's how it reads .. it's not surprising that the local nick gave up with it, took the easy way out ... and called him to warn him off!
Ridiculous. Language only a few can understand.
hc ..
It does no matter WHAT sort of tree it is .. or how big. It could be a 10 yr old beech or a 100yr old oak. It is in a conservation area .. and I say again .. It is automatically protected (usually to the constraints of a TPO) because of this fact. That is the rule.
If that's how it reads .. it's not surprising that the local nick gave up with it, took the easy way out ... and called him to warn him off!
Ridiculous. Language only a few can understand.
hc ..
It does no matter WHAT sort of tree it is .. or how big. It could be a 10 yr old beech or a 100yr old oak. It is in a conservation area .. and I say again .. It is automatically protected (usually to the constraints of a TPO) because of this fact. That is the rule.
We lived in a conservation area, not only were trees protected but also certain hedgerows. These were listed in the conservation details. The only trees that you were allowed to lop without permission were fruit trees. Your best bet is to get your local council involved. we had something on the same lines happen a few years ago. We had a pair of Old Yew trees either side of our driveway, in a conservation area. Our new to be neighbours put in planning permission to have one removed. This is before they had even completed the house purchase. The first we knew of it was a planning notice on the tree. However, to cut a long story short, we eventually got a Tree preservation order on both Yew Trees which at the time were estimated to be 350 years old, approx same age as cottage. Countact the Council , they will have an officer who deals in this area. Is the tree of pacific interest, aged, rare, unusual specimen etc? Any of this would help your case . I know that cutting down or lopping trees with TPO's is finable, not sure if same applies to conservation areas.
Also remember a court case some years ago, before the high hedges act.
Some poor sole cut his neighbours leyandi's back, which where over- hanging the boundary. Because he cut them back a couple of inches to far, he was taken to court, fine £10,000 plus legal fees. At the rate leylandI grow, they prob had grown back over the boundary line before the case went to court.
Some poor sole cut his neighbours leyandi's back, which where over- hanging the boundary. Because he cut them back a couple of inches to far, he was taken to court, fine £10,000 plus legal fees. At the rate leylandI grow, they prob had grown back over the boundary line before the case went to court.
Hello Albags
Sorry, it should read
**(3) Subsection(1)** does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—'..........
Basically, I was highlighting what criminal harassment is (part 1) and that (part 3) states, part 1 'DOES NOT APPLY TO A COURSE OF CONDUCT IF THE PERSON WHO PURSED IT SHOWS-.
(part 3c) (c) *THAT IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE PURSUIT OF THE COURSE OF CONDUCT REASONABLE.*
On the info disclosed by the ERchelt, I would not consider the 4 phone calls and email communication in this ituation to amount to criminal harassment. It may be that the company has not told the police the full circumstances or that the police officer dealing does not understand the correct meaning of criminal harassment. (which is common).
Sorry, it should read
**(3) Subsection(1)** does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—'..........
Basically, I was highlighting what criminal harassment is (part 1) and that (part 3) states, part 1 'DOES NOT APPLY TO A COURSE OF CONDUCT IF THE PERSON WHO PURSED IT SHOWS-.
(part 3c) (c) *THAT IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE PURSUIT OF THE COURSE OF CONDUCT REASONABLE.*
On the info disclosed by the ERchelt, I would not consider the 4 phone calls and email communication in this ituation to amount to criminal harassment. It may be that the company has not told the police the full circumstances or that the police officer dealing does not understand the correct meaning of criminal harassment. (which is common).
I know the tree is in a conservation area but there are exceptions - if diameter of the trunk is under 7.5 cms 1.5 metres above ground; if it is dead or dying, or if it is dangerous.
The neighbour may have given the council the required notice to prune or lop the tree.
Being in a conservation order does not give the tree a TPO but simply requires the council is notified of intended action 6 weeks in advance.
A TPO can never stop work that prevents a nuisance in the legal sense.
The neighbour may have given the council the required notice to prune or lop the tree.
Being in a conservation order does not give the tree a TPO but simply requires the council is notified of intended action 6 weeks in advance.
A TPO can never stop work that prevents a nuisance in the legal sense.
DC ... OK right. That is clearly what must have happened here.
hc ..
The law actually says one can cut back a tree with PO if branches (or roots) are imminently likely to cause harm to property or person.
Many local councils have their own policies on sizes of trees .. so you cannot use that trunk size quote at all. One problem is (which is highlighted in the Trees and Preservation Orders: A Guide To The Law and Good Practice) is that no-where is defined what a tree is, and when it's not a tree. It could be a small sapling.
hc ..
The law actually says one can cut back a tree with PO if branches (or roots) are imminently likely to cause harm to property or person.
Many local councils have their own policies on sizes of trees .. so you cannot use that trunk size quote at all. One problem is (which is highlighted in the Trees and Preservation Orders: A Guide To The Law and Good Practice) is that no-where is defined what a tree is, and when it's not a tree. It could be a small sapling.
Quote:
9.13 Anyone who cuts down, uproots, tops, lops, wilfully destroys or wilfully damages a tree in a conservation area without giving a section 211 notice (or otherwise in contravention of section 211) is guilty of an offence. The same penalties as those for contravening a TPO apply (see Chapter 10 of this Guide). For example, anyone who cuts down a tree in a conservation area without giving a section 211 notice is liable, if convicted in the Magistrates' Court, to a fine of up to £20,000. Anyone who carries out work in a way that is not likely to destroy the tree is liable to a fine in the Magistrates' Court of up to £2,500.
9.13 Anyone who cuts down, uproots, tops, lops, wilfully destroys or wilfully damages a tree in a conservation area without giving a section 211 notice (or otherwise in contravention of section 211) is guilty of an offence. The same penalties as those for contravening a TPO apply (see Chapter 10 of this Guide). For example, anyone who cuts down a tree in a conservation area without giving a section 211 notice is liable, if convicted in the Magistrates' Court, to a fine of up to £20,000. Anyone who carries out work in a way that is not likely to destroy the tree is liable to a fine in the Magistrates' Court of up to £2,500.
TPO Consent: (Interesting) ..
Who Can Apply?
6.36 Anyone can apply for consent under a TPO. You do not have to have a legal interest in the land and, unlike applications for planning permission, a TPO application does not have to be accompanied by a certificate that the applicant is the owner of the land concerned, or that the owner has been notified. For example, a person can apply to carry out work on trees which are situated in a neighbour's property. But an applicant who is not the owner of the trees is advised to consult the owner before making an application; the applicant is also advised to notify the owner as soon as the application has been submitted. It is legitimate for the LPA to ask applicants about their legal interests in the trees they propose to carry out work on. Their decision on the application should be based
on the merits of the case, in the public interest. If they grant consent it will be for the applicant to make sure any necessary permission is obtained from the owner of the tree before carrying out the work.
Who Can Apply?
6.36 Anyone can apply for consent under a TPO. You do not have to have a legal interest in the land and, unlike applications for planning permission, a TPO application does not have to be accompanied by a certificate that the applicant is the owner of the land concerned, or that the owner has been notified. For example, a person can apply to carry out work on trees which are situated in a neighbour's property. But an applicant who is not the owner of the trees is advised to consult the owner before making an application; the applicant is also advised to notify the owner as soon as the application has been submitted. It is legitimate for the LPA to ask applicants about their legal interests in the trees they propose to carry out work on. Their decision on the application should be based
on the merits of the case, in the public interest. If they grant consent it will be for the applicant to make sure any necessary permission is obtained from the owner of the tree before carrying out the work.
Cutting and Lopping .. (TPO)
6.10 Under common law a landowner can cut the branches from a neighbour's trees if they overhang his or her property. The overhanging branches are regarded as a 'nuisance' and may be cut at the boundary between the two properties whether or not they are causing any damage. The cut branches, including any fruit, remain the property of the neighbouring owner. The same rule applies to encroaching roots.69 Two properties must be involved, and so householders cannot claim that the trees in their own garden are the cause of a nuisance to themselves.
6.11 Whether the branches or roots of a protected tree can be cut back in this way under the exemption has not been settled by the Courts. In the unreported case of Sun Timber Co. Ltd. v Leeds City Council (a case involving overhanging branches) it was decided that the exemption applies only where the nuisance is 'actionable', in other words where the overhanging branches are causing, or there is an immediate risk of their causing, actual foreseeable damage. If this interpretation of the exemption is correct the LPA's consent would be required under the TPO before cutting back branches or roots which are not causing damage.
6.10 Under common law a landowner can cut the branches from a neighbour's trees if they overhang his or her property. The overhanging branches are regarded as a 'nuisance' and may be cut at the boundary between the two properties whether or not they are causing any damage. The cut branches, including any fruit, remain the property of the neighbouring owner. The same rule applies to encroaching roots.69 Two properties must be involved, and so householders cannot claim that the trees in their own garden are the cause of a nuisance to themselves.
6.11 Whether the branches or roots of a protected tree can be cut back in this way under the exemption has not been settled by the Courts. In the unreported case of Sun Timber Co. Ltd. v Leeds City Council (a case involving overhanging branches) it was decided that the exemption applies only where the nuisance is 'actionable', in other words where the overhanging branches are causing, or there is an immediate risk of their causing, actual foreseeable damage. If this interpretation of the exemption is correct the LPA's consent would be required under the TPO before cutting back branches or roots which are not causing damage.
are you sure it was the police?
and not him, bull sh1tting?
i cant see why theyd genuinely involve the police when they know they could be in trouble for cutting your tree down
maybe its scare tactics? did you get a name? id call the police and ask to speak again to the officer who phoned and get confirmation it was a genuine call...
then id threaten the hell out of the tree the surgeon with threats to sue for trespass, vandalism, theft of your branches, etc etc
and actually, come to think of it, how do you know this firm even did it?
could the neighbour be lying?
that he actually did it himself and is now trying to blame someone else, hoping you wont go any further because 'professionals' made the mess of your tree, not him...?
i find it hard to believe professionals would enter a property that the person clearly didnt live at, without seeing ID and do this...and also make such a pigs ear of it...
unless perhaos hes a friend of the owner...
and not him, bull sh1tting?
i cant see why theyd genuinely involve the police when they know they could be in trouble for cutting your tree down
maybe its scare tactics? did you get a name? id call the police and ask to speak again to the officer who phoned and get confirmation it was a genuine call...
then id threaten the hell out of the tree the surgeon with threats to sue for trespass, vandalism, theft of your branches, etc etc
and actually, come to think of it, how do you know this firm even did it?
could the neighbour be lying?
that he actually did it himself and is now trying to blame someone else, hoping you wont go any further because 'professionals' made the mess of your tree, not him...?
i find it hard to believe professionals would enter a property that the person clearly didnt live at, without seeing ID and do this...and also make such a pigs ear of it...
unless perhaos hes a friend of the owner...
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News11 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
Film, Media & TV18 mins ago