Tree work which went wrong

[skyetom]

Edited to protect the guilty. Thanks for all feedback.

I got the outcome I wanted but I'll leave the part below so that anyone else reading this knows a little of the background

So, right now I have

• a bill I don't want to pay as the work wasn't what I wanted to be done
• no tree
• a damaged fence
• lots of hassle to come on top of what's happened already
• a contractor who claims to be insured for damages and "every eventuality"
• the likelihood that he sold my tree for firewood!

Thanks
Skyetom

Edited by skyetom on Thursday 20th October 01:59

[jazzyjeff]

Oh dear, sounds like you've been dealing with a right cowboy there - they subcontract their work then don't expend any effort to ensure that the work has been carried out in accordance with the contract.

However...

You weren't happy with the original work (i.e. felling rather than coppicing) and at that point you should have made it clear that you weren't prepared to pay under breach of contract.

Unfortunately, you engaged the contractor to correct matters by removing the tree entirely and making good any damage to the fence. As a result, it is a bit rich expecting not to pay anything at all when in effect you have had corrective work undertaken which has substantively been carried out (just not to the quality you would expect). In fact, by my reading, they have gone further and done more work than was originally planned.

Refusing to pay the invoice will place you on the back foot, since they will only sue you for the value of the invoice, and you will have to submit a defence to this.

Instead, you should enter into negotiation with them (IN WRITING) setting out why you think you've been overcharged and suggesting an appropriate reduction in recompense for the shortfall in expectation. But expecting not to pay anything at all would be just taking the piss, IMO

[ghamer]

Ignore him,let him run up a huge legal bill and go to court.The judge will laugh at him and throw it out.

[jazzyjeff]

ghamer said:

The judge will laugh at him and throw it out.

...and your evidence for this is..?

[daz3210]

What would it have cost for the work that has been done?

Would it have been cheaper than what you actually wanted, but didn't get?

If so, your argument is good for a reduced bill, if not the argument is not so good.

You could try writing, suggesting you will settle at what you are willing to pay, but essentially you will have to pay something.

[andye30m3]

If it was me I either offer to pay once a new 40ft tree of the same species was in place of the one that was wrongly removed or find someone else to quote to do this and deduct it from his bill

[hman]

My response to your subbie would be :

"as soon as the replacement tree is in place and is cut to the originally instructed height I will pay the full bill"

until then, he can poke off as contractually he hasnt finished the original work instruction.

[jazzyjeff]

andye30m3 said:

If it was me I either offer to pay once a new 40ft tree of the same species was in place of the one that was wrongly removed or find someone else to quote to do this and deduct it from his bill

The feckless contractor already offered to replace the tree - but the OP has said they aren't really sure they want that right now.

[skyetom]

Thanks for the replies!

The cost to completely remove the tree would have been less than the price quoted for the re-shaping because re-shaping takes time and skill. Chopping it down is less work.

andye30m3 - your point is the one which is in my mind too. A replacement 40 ft tree (or even a 20 ft tree) would cost a fortune; much more than the value of the invoice we were sent. The time and money the contractor has spent removing the stump and fixing my fence should not be a factor as these are things that never should have been required in the first place had the job been completed correctly.

There has been a big development since I put up the first post: the business owner just called my wife to say that there would be no charge. He's had a re-think apparently and thinks that we should call it quits. It's a good result I suppose and what we wanted when he started talking about lawyers.

Thanks again to everyone who commented!

Skyetom

[eldar]

Was there any TPOs in place?

[jazzyjeff]

eldar said:

Was there any TPOs in place?

Surely if there was a TPO, that would be a concern of the contractor and not the OP?

[skyetom]

There were no TPOs. We had this checked about 3 years ago when the same guy removed another tree for us. (One we did ask to have removed!)

This is why the job was messed up apparently - the boss sent the contractor the instructions relating to the first job rather than the second one. Schoolboy error...

[eldar]

jazzyjeff said:

Surely if there was a TPO, that would be a concern of the contractor and not the OP?

Good question, the landowner is ultimately responsible, as I understand it - to stop people claiming they paid some pie person to over-enthusiastically lop a couple of branches off (at ground level). You need PP, anyway.

Having a proper paper trail should deflect things, though.

[ghamer]

jazzyjeff said:

ghamer said:

The judge will laugh at him and throw it out.

...and your evidence for this is..?

Erm,common sense.I know the legal system isn,t blessed with this but in the real world the job wasn,t done to spec so contract is null and void.Your basically called this chaps bluff,either nob off useless fecker or pay lots off money to asswipe lawyers and probably lose the case in the process!

[Jasandjules]

ghamer said:

Ignore him,let him run up a huge legal bill and go to court.The judge will laugh at him and throw it out.

Really? He will be required to make some payment (that which is reasonable) for the works which he wished to be undertaken.

ETA - the amount payable will be, in my view, what the company would charge to remove a tree, as that was the work done (and which, in essence, the OP agreed to - in law at least).

Furthermore however, nothing prevents the OP from seeking to agree reductions in the bill for losses suffered as a result of the breach of contract (the chopping down of the tree, time spent dealing with this issue, any time and costs incurred in rectifying the fence etc)..

Edited by Jasandjules on Wednesday 19th October 18:58

[singlecoil]

Jasandjules said:

ghamer said:

Ignore him,let him run up a huge legal bill and go to court.The judge will laugh at him and throw it out.

Really? He will be required to make some payment (that which is reasonable) for the works which he wished to be undertaken.

But he didn't get the "works which he wished to be undertaken".

[JustinP1]

skyetom said:

There has been a big development since I put up the first post: the business owner just called my wife to say that there would be no charge. He's had a re-think apparently and thinks that we should call it quits. It's a good result I suppose and what we wanted when he started talking about lawyers.

I wouldn't say it was impossible, and in fact a possibility that he *was* more than thinking of lawyers and got initial advice from one.

That advice would be:

1) That they are not due a penny as they have not done the job asked for.

2) That they are responsible for the damage caused. This would mean replacing a 40 ft tree - which would be a four figure sum.


Thus, in the circumstances 'calling it quits' is by far his best situation. In fact, if I were advising you, and you were feeling mercenary you could quite easily start a claim against him for the damage.

[s3fella]

dont forget he's had the wood from the tree, too..... worth up to £100?

[skyetom]

s3fella said:

dont forget he's had the wood from the tree, too..... worth up to £100?

This was the point that was probably most annoying. He would indeed have got a fair amount for the wood.

Part of me is still quite keen to pursue the guy seeing as he tried to put the wind up us over the payment but I think it's time to let everything settle down as the damage is done and the tree isn't coming back.

Thanks again for the replies

Skyetom

[johnfm]

Jasandjules said:

ghamer said:

Ignore him,let him run up a huge legal bill and go to court.The judge will laugh at him and throw it out.

Really? He will be required to make some payment (that which is reasonable) for the works which he wished to be undertaken.

ETA - the amount payable will be, in my view, what the company would charge to remove a tree, as that was the work done (and which, in essence, the OP agreed to - in law at least).

Furthermore however, nothing prevents the OP from seeking to agree reductions in the bill for losses suffered as a result of the breach of contract (the chopping down of the tree, time spent dealing with this issue, any time and costs incurred in rectifying the fence etc)..

Edited by Jasandjules on Wednesday 19th October 18:58

Seems the OP has suffered the damage here.

He wanted a tree trimming.

THe contractor has removed the tree completely.

i cannot see how the contractor can enforce the original contract.

The second 'contract' (ie we will come and remove the stump and make good any damage we may do to a fence) seems to be the only contract the contractor can enforce - in that he actually did this bit. But what was the agreed price for removing the stump?

Is the OP's consideration for stump removal just 'not kicking off for the first fk up'?

I cannot see any circumstance in which the tree surgeon can expect payment for the original work.