AIBU to resent being asked to pay for neighbours cutting back our tree?

OP, I’d be paying for Jack shit in your situation.

If someone else’s tree overhangs your property you can’t make them trim it back, nor can you send them a bill if you do it/pay someone to do it. You can’t take all the legal advice you want but you’d get nowhere….even a quick google will throw up links to sites like citizens advice which cover stuff like this.

Years ago we had an 8ft tall conifer hedge which dh maintained our side and the overall height, would cut it twice a year. The lady who lived the other side would ask us to do her side and I would send dh round because she lived on her own and was older and I try to be a good neighbour.

Then her awful son moved it, turned her back garden into something resembling steptoe’s junk yard and was quite vile in general. One day when I was out he came hammering at the front door, teenage Dd answered and he ranted at her telling her to tell me and dh that we had 24 hours to cut his side of the hedge or he was doing it and sending us a bill. This was the first time he’d mentioned it. I obviously didn’t take kindly to him ranting at Dd nor being such a rude arsehole. So ignored him. Partly because I was pissed off but also because it was December, it was snowing that weekend and his immediate side of the hedge is an uneven rubbish heap where he dumps rubble and junk from his work as a builder. There would literally be no way of safely putting a stepladder there.

I spent the weekend waiting for him to come round and he never came round again. He did however burn the hedge down a few months later and cause tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage to my property.

And then a few weeks after the fire had the gall to tell me he misses the hedge as we now don’t have as much privacy (I replaced it with a fence). 🙈🤷‍♀️

Completely selfish to expect neighbours to cut and maintain your trees. It bares bad feelings. It's not the neighbours choice to have a tree that then becomes a job for them to maintain. Be the better neighbours, maintain your own plants.

My insurance will only cover liability for damage caused by my trees if I have taken due care. I had a couple of really wonky oaks with a TPOs on and was having trouble getting permission to get them removed until I explained that I didn't care really whether they said yes or no, I just needed to be able to demonstrate to my insurers that I had taken due care if there was an incident and that I had tried to have them removed but had been denied permission.
And no I was not stripping out my garden and making wildlife homeless, far from it.

its ok if the neighbour is okay with it, otherwise not.

first post nails it. LL needs to be careful what advice he takes, Its dumping to "just sling the cuttings over the fence."

But if it was a healthy maintained tree that got blown down all the damage on your side would be your responsibility. If it damaged your property it would be covered by your insurance anyway.

I have 2 massive ( 75ft+) trees near my house, I declare them to my insurance and so does my neighbour on his because they are near. Premium is about 20p more a year.

My neighbour has a gigantic Holly bush right on the border of our gardens. When we moved in it had taken up a good chunk of the back of the garden with over growth. I actually watched a gardener come round and neatly trim all her side at her request, she didn’t bother to sort out what was in our garden of course! So I had to hack it back myself and then offer her the gigantic load of spiky shit I’d bagged up, she said no thanks! So I had to take it to the tip as well! Total joke. It’s not my bloody bush!

@Choccyp1g
I’m with you, partially. Not about digging it up and moving it, but definitely about not planting trees on boundaries and allowing them to shade out your neighbours. I’m in a similar position myself as a result of ex NDN who confessed he had no idea about gardening. Put a tree, and a shrub in a tiny space, pruned them wrongly and then moved. New neighbour doesn’t have a clue either, I’ve explained and offered to help as I want my sunny spot back, but so far to no avail.

If they can be shown to have been negligent, then they can be liable. It's their property.

Maybe I've missed something, but is there any reason why you can't ask the LL to allow you access to cut it back?

Mumsnet is also full of people who are totally lacking in common sense on some subjects.

I have this problem (the bloody thing must be 60ft). Does that mean if it, or part of it, should fall in a storm and damage my house, shed or fences, that the neighbour who owns it is not liable?

What planet are you on love? You can hardly dig up a mature tree with a spade. 😆Plus most people wouldn't be able to get a digger onto their property so don't offer that idea either.

What does "unfeasible cod science" mean?

I have moved trees in the past, up to 15 feet high. You have to be quite expert, and do it at the right time of year. It is not realistic if half the roots are in someone else's garden though.

However, as already mentioned I was sort of joking.

That’s a really good idea.

Seriously, you shouldn't be posting on a thread with a tree query if all you can come up with is unfeasible cod science!

I wouldn't want my any of my trees to be at the mercy of a random person trimming them, with no regard to weight stability, disease prevention, or aesthetics. I'd pay for it myself this time, but ask the landlord to insert a tenancy clause that allows you to maintain the tree 2 x a year

YANBU. Some bonkers replies on here. It’s completely their responsibility to cut back anything on their side, and to pay for it. They need to offer the offcuts to you, but you don’t have to accept, and so it’s their responsibility to dispose of them. The fact that it’s your tree has nothing to do with it.

you’re meant to offer back, not throw back.

Your neighbour is well within their rights to cut the tree to the boundary provided it does not destabilise the tree. If it is large tree and their actions destabilise the tree that is a different matter. I am assuming as it’s an ornamental tree it does not fall into that category, so it’s not likely to fall on the house for example. It is your responsibility to look after the tree, I understand the annoyance with the tenant but it sounds like the agreement should have been with the landlord.

If the tree canopy was wholly within your boundary, you would quite happily have paid for the whole tree to be trimmed. Technically you can refuse to pay but why not be the bigger person and pay?

OP made it clear the neighbours wouldn’t let them cut it back!

Well, I was sort of joking, but so many people who also have trees too big for there garden have got so cross, I am becoming more entrenched.

My basic point is that if you want a big tree, plant it well away from the boundary.

If you want a small tree that needs pruning, plant it far enough from the boundary so that you can prune it without going next door.

You don't have to pay . Why not let them deal with it?

Mumsnet is full of people who think that if they have decided something is fair or morally right, the law will agree with them.

Being on Mumsnet has been instructive in understanding why so many people undertake litigation they aren't likely to win, or is unlikely to be cost effective.