[Help] Council charging me for repair to pavement

[KeegansHairPiece]

Sadly not. They are right up against my fence - well away from the kerbside - on a section where nobody parks.

It's ridiculous really, we should be encouraging trees, not coming up with reasons people will just chop any trees on their land down as someone else suggesting because a root may do a bit of damage to a pavement. Personally think local authorities should be doing more to support people with trees. They're quick enough to slap a TPO on ones they like so you can't even prune the things without a permission, then try and charge you for a bit of pavement repair. Bullshit if you ask me.

 

[happypig]

What was there first, the trees or the pavement ?

If it was the trees, then you could claim the council should have taken this into account when installing the pavement.

 

[Uncle C]

It's ridiculous really, we should be encouraging trees, not coming up with reasons people will just chop any trees on their land down as someone else suggesting because a root may do a bit of damage to a pavement. Personally think local authorities should be doing more to support people with trees. They're quick enough to slap a TPO on ones they like so you can't even prune the things without a permission, then try and charge you for a bit of pavement repair. Bullshit if you ask me.

So if an elderly person trips over the broken slab and ends up in hospital is that OK?

 

[Uncle C]

......

 

[Moshe Gariani]

What was there first, the trees or the pavement ?

If it was the trees, then you could claim the council should have taken this into account when installing the pavement.

Pavement wins that by a few decades. Trees are nasty leylandii of very limited value.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There are several trees potentially involved so that could be a bit of an issue. Might do me a favour though as I'm quite keen on getting rid of them and a project to build a house or at least get planning permission for the end of the garden where they are...

Building a house at the end of the garden, you say? North, south, east or west of the property?

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

So if an elderly person trips over the broken slab and ends up in hospital is that OK?

Read my post again, more slowly if you didn't get the gist first time round when you replied with this.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Building a house at the end of the garden, you say? North, south, east or west of the property?

View attachment 140466

A lot more modest than that. We are just fortunate with backing onto another road and that next door have already done the same 20 years or so ago.

Will be a tight squeeze for something small, without much garden, but could be a nice little option for an older individual or couple on the Sunshine Coast...

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Yes, I'm sure anything they do will be more expensive than the normal cost.

They have replaced the previous paving slabs (2 or 3 of them) with about one square metre of tarmac. Anyone any idea (to the nearest £100?) what they might charge for doing that?

Tarmac queries are best served on BBS

 

[Audax]

You mention that the work was done back in February. How long ago did they notify you that they expect you to pay for it? If it was only recent, I'd be asking pointed questions about why it took so long. And then following up with asking them to produce what proof they took at the time of the repair that it was your trees that did the damage. Alongside that, you want proof that it genuinely was an emergency repair that couldn't wait while they notified/negotiated with you. And a further question about what steps they took to ensure that the cost of the repair was minimised - did they get competing quotes? Did they consider alternative means of repair?

I would also be telling them that you expect to be allowed at least as long as it took them to inform you before you are expected to pay (if they only notified you this month, which I'm assuming based on you only just raising it here, then you'd be wanting at least 6 months before the payment comes due).

By no means an expert, but you might be able to wriggle out of it (even if your trees were "at fault") if you can show that they cannot prove they followed due process (and, by implication, that they are attempting to retrofit a charge against you).

 

[maffew]

It's ridiculous really, we should be encouraging trees, not coming up with reasons people will just chop any trees on their land down as someone else suggesting because a root may do a bit of damage to a pavement. Personally think local authorities should be doing more to support people with trees. They're quick enough to slap a TPO on ones they like so you can't even prune the things without a permission, then try and charge you for a bit of pavement repair. Bullshit if you ask me.

My old mans had a bloody mare with a tree in his garden with a TPO on it. A birch I think. The roots went under his house and have basically ****ed it up causing subsidence and instability. He couldnt do anything about the tree until he had surveyor report etc then had to apply to the council to fell the tree with that evidence. The damage caused and work needed to rectify is substantial

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

There are several trees potentially involved so that could be a bit of an issue. Might do me a favour though as I'm quite keen on getting rid of them and a project to build a house or at least get planning permission for the end of the garden where they are...

Then you’ll find the tree(s) has got a Tree Preservation Order on it, and they won’t give you permission to chop it (them) down anyway.

 

[thedonkeycentrehalf]

Then you’ll find the tree(s) has got a Tree Preservation Order on it, and they won’t give you permission to chop it (them) down anyway.

Doubt that a leylandii will have a TPO

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Doubt that a leylandii will have a TPO

You'd be surprised and catches a lot of people out as they assume they're not. I definitely know of some in Hove that are TPO'd.

 

[zefarelly]

You have to remember the council have no money, they will try to find any way possible to make someone else pay for any repairs they have to do.

Adur are continually selling everything off and neglecting aS MUCH AS THEY CAN, OUR ROADS, PAVEMENTS VERGES AND PARKS ARE shambolic (oops caps lock) most recent has been the selling off of a load of a patch of land with 40 odd lock ups to build 4 houses. so we need to rehome a car and stuff. . .won't be long before they start selling off the alotments and parks.

 

[Bodian]

Anyone else ever been through this?

Apparently tree roots from our garden have caused a problem with the pavement and we (or our insurers) are liable to pay for the work done by East Sussex Highways.

Main area of advice if possible is how much do you think the actual cost was for them to replace 3 or 4 cracked pavement slabs with tarmac?

£200? A bit less? A lot more? Will they have used any German products?

I think we have £375 excess to pay on any claim so am thinking we'll be coughing up our own cash for this?

A few questions strike me here:

• Did ESCC serve formal Notice on you that your actions were damaging the surface of the highway;
• If so - what section of the Highways Act did they quote;
• What remedies did they offer before just doing the works.

In general, it is unusual for a highways authority to just retrospectively charge someone for work they have carried out without notifying you that they were going to do it. In law, it's an offence to disturb the surface of a highway (footpath/bridleway) so as to render it inconvenient for the public to use (s131A Highways Act), but in your case it's a footway rather than a footpath. So s133 probably applies - which is where a highway authority can repair the surface and claim costs for damage caused by 'excavations'. But, it's arguable whether a tree root is an 'excavation'. So, which section of what Act are they relying on?

 

[super-seagulls]

remember to chop the tree down, otherwise repeat costs in future.

The council probably will refuse permission to chop down the tree!

 

[Moshe Gariani]

A few questions strike me here:

• Did ESCC serve formal Notice on you that your actions were damaging the surface of the highway;
• If so - what section of the Highways Act did they quote;
• What remedies did they offer before just doing the works.

In general, it is unusual for a highways authority to just retrospectively charge someone for work they have carried out without notifying you that they were going to do it. In law, it's an offence to disturb the surface of a highway (footpath/bridleway) so as to render it inconvenient for the public to use (s131A Highways Act), but in your case it's a footway rather than a footpath. So s133 probably applies - which is where a highway authority can repair the surface and claim costs for damage caused by 'excavations'. But, it's arguable whether a tree root is an 'excavation'. So, which section of what Act are they relying on?

Thanks very much for this. We think it very “unusual” too that they can just go ahead with the work without saying anything to us about it first and then make us pay...

What would be your advice about how to proceed?

 

[HitchinSeagull]

Pavement wins that by a few decades. Trees are nasty leylandii of very limited value.

Not your fault but leylandii are horrors, just shouldn't be sold for general use. Fast growing they may be but then they carry on and on and on. Maybe that's why the council don't have much patience.

Sent from my EVR-N29 using Tapatalk

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Not your fault but leylandii are horrors, just shouldn't be sold for general use. Fast growing they may be but then they carry on and on and on. Maybe that's why the council don't have much patience.

Sent from my EVR-N29 using Tapatalk

I agree leylandii are a nightmare. Not much to look at and expensive to maintain. Previous owners of house let them grow too big. We have halved their height.

Will the root systems keep expanding and/or cause more trouble even if we maintain lower height now?