Tree hanging over neighbor - tenants task?
- Thread starter k88k
- Start date
Hi K88k, above reply is correct. Not your responsibility it is your neighbours responsibility to pay for the branches to be cut down and removed from site. He is not permitted to throw them over the fence. As it is a tree and not a shrub it would not be the tenants responsibility either. If he is trimming less than 10% or 15% in some councils permission is not required from council.
They are trying it on. They are able to cut back the branches to the fence line. However, if during a storm the large branch falls on to their roof, it is your tree so you have to pay the damages.
I would have thought their insurance would cover this... surely?
Their insurance company would cover the cost, then the insurer chases you for their costs.
Didn't think that the 'owner' of the tree is responsible. If that was the case then as the owner you would want to claim it on your own insurance.
Cheers
This interests me. The only time I've ever claimed on insurance was when some feral tenant damaged the IP he was a tenant in. I know the insurance company paid out and fixed the damage (approx $2,500 to fix from memory).
I also know the insurer made it clear to us that they would be chasing up the other tenant, the feral man's girlfriend and she would likely be paying this off for a while, as she was on the lease too.
I've never heard of a tree falling on a neighbouring roof and the owners of the property where the tree "lived" being chased for any money.
I'm curious to know if anybody has any real life experience. Time for me to send a PM to BrettC.
best to check with your local council, but many council's in NSW have a policy that says you can trim encroaching branches or parts of the tree as long as it is under 10% of the total tree. Might also be dependant on species in case they are engandered species such as blue gums or terpentines (spelling?)
oh and it's up to the person who owns the property which the tree is encroaching on to take action.
oh and it's up to the person who owns the property which the tree is encroaching on to take action.
It varies by state. In Queensland, the "treekeeper" - the owner of the land where the tree's stem meets the ground, basically - is responsible for the tree and if its roots or branches cause any damage, the treekeeper is liable (usually via their insurer).
We had a neighbour's massive gum tree fall in a storm about 10 years ago and go through our roof and ceiling in one room. We rang our insurer to lodge a claim, and they said that it had to go through the neighbour's insurer because it was their tree (unless they didn't have any, as per car insurance). Turned out the neighbour was with the same insurer, so it was all good.
When we had the big storms through Sydney a few years ago and trees fell on houses, the actual home that was damaged were responsible through their own insurance company regardless from where the tree/s fell from. Therefore neighbour's insurance would be responsible of any damage from next doors tree. Also in NSW, properties effected by branches on their side of the property, are responsible if they want them trimmed regardless from where they grow from.
My (admittedly very high-level) reading of the NSW Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 - particularly s 7 - gives me a contrary impression. Can you cite a source, please?
I have actual experience with different situations in the 11 yrs. Speak to insurance companies and local councils and they will inform you as well.
I think I've nutted out the distinction by reading a couple of cases.
Trees being uprooted / blown over by severe storms would not be captured by the NSW legislation, not because tree owners aren't responsible for damage caused by their trees, but because in such a severe storm, the damage is really caused by the storm - working through the intermediary of a tree - rather than by the tree itself. There's not usually any element of fault on the part of the tree owner; there was no maintenance or anything the tree owner could have done to stop the tree falling in such a storm. In those circumstances, the tree owner isn't liable.
If, however, damage is caused by falling branches due to lack of pruning, by invasive roots, and failing to attend to diseased trees, it would be an entirely different matter, and especially so if the tree owner was aware of the potential for damage.
As is nearly always the answer when it comes to the law, the answer is "it depends".
In both QLD and NSW, however, you are generally responsible for the damage your trees cause to the property of others, *unless* as per above storm example, the damage isn't really caused by the tree but by a storm.Sources for NSW position:
http://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/publicationsandfaqs/Problemswithneighbours/index.htm
http://www.cjc.nsw.gov.au/cjc/com_justice_cjchelp/com_justice_neighbours.html#Trees
Prep. 2 different issues for you:
If a tree planted, on my side tree' roots extend to next door and lifts the concrete path ways is that my issue or an act of mother nature?
If a health tree on my property, drops a branch (which they do), and falls on next doors house is that my fault again or mother nature?
If a tree planted, on my side tree' roots extend to next door and lifts the concrete path ways is that my issue or an act of mother nature?
If a health tree on my property, drops a branch (which they do), and falls on next doors house is that my fault again or mother nature?
My perusal of relevant NSW case law would suggest it's usually your issue.If a tree planted, on my side tree' roots extend to next door and lifts the concrete path ways is that my issue or an act of mother nature?
"It depends."Salvatore1 said:If a health tree on my property, drops a branch (which they do), and falls on next doors house is that my fault again or mother nature?
If it's a tree that's known to drop branches, or has dropped branches before, or if the neighbours asked you to remove branches because they were scared of falling branches, then it's also likely to be yours.
In regard to overhanging branches my understanding is that as a general rule, overhanging branches are the responsibility of the property which has the branches, not the owner of the tree. If an insured event causes damage to due to the overhanging branches they would not be able to seek recovery from the tree owner. Also, in the event the tree was to fall during a storm, causing damage to a neighbouring property, as it was due to the storm event (an "Act of God" although not a term used in Australian insurance policies), the person who suffered the damage would not be able to seek recovery from the tree owners insurer. The only other thing would be whether negligence threw a wildcard in there.
brettc are you trying to upset Prep? He find another legal case to argue!
Sorry Prep did mean to get the gender wrong
