Monstrous Sycamore

I would second your conclusion whilst disagreeing with your reasons. Sure, using the council to back you up or indeed the law shouldn't be the first step. But knowing English people over the centuries have decided a man should pay for the damage his tree does might give EGW's aproach a bit of direction when talking to her neighbours.
EGW wrote that they were ''pretty amenable'' though they ''expect we'd have to cough up''! Sounds to me her neighbours are cheeky wombats. I can't believe they don't know it's their job to do it and are just trying it on.

If a neighbour tells me he doesn't like my branches over his side, I'm not going to argue, I'm just going to get it cut as a good neighbour should. The fact he's let it get out of control doesn't let him off the hook as I'm sure you agree. I just felt that EGW was in danger of becoming a victim in order to keep the peace. I'm just urging that EGW should turn it around - so that the cheeky neighbours see that they have to do something to keep good relations too. Hence calling in the council assessor as a 'neutral expert' which allows EGW to tell the neighbours honestly that she didn't realise they were liable. Thus keeping in their good books. I'm thinking, see! Invite them over for tea if you want neighbours to think you're nice, but don't let them walk all over you.

The only defence the neighbours can have is if they can claim that that the neighbours have somehow accepted the tree as a permanent fixture. Which would be a little difficult to sustain if it's been progressively creating more and more bother. Still, putting down in writing exactly how much it's grown and the bother it causes might be useful if you take it further.

 

I believe there are two completely different points here. The law, and what's fair.

I'm no legal expert, but I believe the law in England and Wales says that there is no automatic right to 'light', as in just because a neighbour's tree overhangs your property, then your neighbour is not automatically legally obliged to do anything at all about it, even if you complain. The law does say that unless there is a preservation order, then you have the right to cut off any branches that overhang your property, BUT, and here's the weird quirk, you then have to offer the cuttings back to the owner, otherwise its technically stealing, although it would take a particularly awkward individual to pursue that I think.

Then there's what's morally right. If I had a tree that was causing a problem for my neighbours, I'd want to do whatever I could to find a mutually acceptable solution. I'd cut it myself if I could, otherwise I'd get a tree surgeon in.

The flip side, being the neighbour on the receiving end (as I currently am, and as Ellie is), I'd also want to find a mutually acceptable solution. In my case I've just chopped off two very large overhanging branches that were damaged and threatening to fall. I wouldn't dream of asking the old lady to pay for work on my side. When the old girl is well again, I may suggest that the tree is too big for its site and that it needs a crown reduction, which will cost about £500 I reckon. As the tree was there, and overgrown before I bought this house, and I still chose to buy it, I think its only fair that I should offer to meet half the bill.

Its all about give and take, and trying to find a solution that works for all parties.

 

The law is what's fair. Fairness is it's guiding principle. One point Sir, not two!

As I wrote: It's all about Common Law 'harm'. Common Law principles based on constitutional documents (i.e. rights of redress, of tradition - the right to enjoy your life and property as people have; without being harmed etc) have the most power. Then judicial interpretations based on fairness, equity etc are followed in lower courts (i.e. precidence, stare decisis). Legislative acts come next. Then lowest in their power, but still very effective, is the council.

Thus the law is pretty clear:
1) If a neighbour owns the trunk, then he owns the tree.
2) He then owns every single twig and root of his tree, wherever they may be.
3) He is entitled to enjoy that tree, it's fruit and it's wood, wherever they fall (this is why he can ask for the cuttings).
And on the other side:
4) He is responsible for all the harm it causes.
5) You have the right to act unilaterally to reduce harm.

Ipso facto, if you've been harmed, you have redress. So at the same time as discussing it with your neighbour and being nice to the cheeky wombat, prepare your case.

To prove harm: record the damage. This is the tricky bit. You have to show the tree made your life or property worse now than it was before. So don't think twice, photograph everything now including the length of new green growth, light entering your back windows as it's cut off by the tree. Film the leaves falling from the tree onto your grass (you need to prove there are no other sycamores nearby) And give times and dates to the photos.

To get redress, choose the easiest way. The easiest way to get redress in English law is to put a price on the harm. So get estimates from two recognised tree surgeons for cutting it back enough to 1) get reasonable light as above. 2) remove any danger from falling branches, 3) be able to walk under it. 4) Perhaps an estimate for removing the leaves too. If it's dangerous or stops you walking then no worries; get the work done and write a letter to a magistrate claiming costs. But EGW has to prove the lack of light harms her. If she records the diminishing light now, then when the light is mostly gone (or gone from her rooms) in a few years, she'll be able to get the tree chopped and sue them. But because there's still light now then a council assessor is the best bet - especially if the tree surgeons want to charge for an estimate. All this is stuff her neighbour will have to pay a lot more for in the future and therefore she'll be doing him a good neighbourly kindness (!) if she invites him to pay for the work now while its cheaper.

Well, she chose to let it get overgrown, so actually you can force her to pay for removing all the dangerous branches. On your side you can get two estimates for the work and sue her for the cost. If she still won't pay, get the bailifs in to sell her property. Alternatively you can force your council to serve an abatement demand and if she ignores it they can enter her garden, cut it down and sue her, using bailifs if necessary. If her garden's locked they can break her fence and get her to pay for breaking it. For dangourous branches over her property, you can request the courts to make an abatement order and if she ignores it they can pursue her in criminal court where she could face prison.
:-)

Oh go on then. Spoil-sport!

 

This made me smile.

I had a similar dispute with my neighbour over a variated acer which had reverted to a huge sycamore because it had not been looked after properly. It was 40 foot tall, 20 metres from our house, adjacent to our boundary fence and cast a shadow over our patio in the afternoon.

I spoke with my neighbour and she insisted it was her favourite tree but was happy for branches overhanging our garden to cut off (at our expense). The tree was a bone of contention between us for several years until I decided enough was enough. The tree was getting higher and the spread of the canopy larger. We wrote to our neighbours and said that we would be taking down the branches on our side of the fence and putting them in their garden for disposal. This would have meant half the tree being cut off resulting in a very lopsided look. Naturally they were not happy with this.

I wasn't until our neighbours came into our garden and actually saw the severity of the problem that they accepted it had to go. Fortunately for them (and us) our son is a tree surgeon and he did the work free of charge. All it cost the neighbours was a new chain saw blade - bargain!

Now we can see the sky, feel the sun, don't have the annual clearance of leaves and seedlings popping up everywhere. My neighbour has said she will be putting in another tree to replace it but I'll be pushing up the daisies by the time it gets to maturity.

 

It was that unnessesary apostrope in ''it's'', wasn't it?
Drat!