Neighbours trees interfering with my Sky

[SamW98]

The last few weeks my Sky keeps breaking up. I got a mate who's an engineer to have a look in case there was a fault and he said the reason is that my neighbours have very high trees which have grown and are now directly in the line of where my signal is being received.

So I gave them a knock and, very politely asked if they could just cut the tops down a bit and explained why. The man who lives there looked me up and down and said 'how sad is it that you think watching tv more important than trees that have been there since before I was born' and shut the door

Now I'm not asking him to cut the trees down just cut the top back so I can watch my Sky without it breaking up

AIBU if I now cut the tops back myself? They do overhang into my garden anyway?

at the direct expense of my neighbours' access to basic services

Sky TV isn't a "basic service".

I can only assume its a MN snobbery thing about Sky

I agree. There's an inbuilt prejudice amongst a lot of people that Sky is for 'council' people (and another word beginning with 'c') and not for 'decent' folk. It's a bit like 'flat-screen TV' used to be used by tabloids as shorthand for 'rough, undeserving benefits scroungers', when now there's no such thing as a 'flat-screen TV' as such - it's just a TV, like everybody has.

Plenty of us don't have Sky for premium channels and endless sport/films/poor-people entertainment when they should 'jolly well be at work' - it's just the most reliable method for us to receive an acceptable TV signal for normal TV. Even for those who do like all of the sports and lots of additional/premium content, why on earth should they be looked down on for getting it via Sky rather than Netflix, which appears to be 'acceptable'?

I always think the same when people pompously slap others down with "Oh, is that something you read on the internet?" - as if the world's primary communication and information source were somehow totally eschewed by all of the governments, councils, official bodies, global experts, world leading organisations and generally 'smart' people. Just because your own world, sphere of understanding and likes/dislikes may be severely restricted through your own choice, doesn't mean that everybody else must be wrong or similarly limit their own lives.

I think if OP had just said 'my TV signal', some of these replies would have been very different. I really cannot see why it's OK to just deny your neighbour access to a basic utility - for the sake of tidying up a few stray branches (which were NOT there before the people involved were born) - branches that aren't even over your own property.

If the roots of a massive tree were starting to interfere with OP's gas pipes, would people just say "tough, because trees" and tell her to rip out her central heating and buy lots of expensive little electric heaters instead? Water pipes? "Why are you complaining when you can buy bottled water for only 8p a litre?" etc.

@Blindstupid

To be fair, I’d be pretty miffed if I were the OP.

You can actually trim the branches on your side OP if it would help - From RHS website, but also everywhere else online.

^Can I cut off overhanging branches?
Yes, provided it is done without trespassing onto the other person’s property. It is also permissible to climb into the tree to undertake the work, again so long as it does not require going into the neighbour’s garden/land. Note that trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) or in a Conservation Area will require prior consent from the local authority.^

Fascinating. But the OP wants the next-door neighbour to trim the height of their own trees, themselves, so she can watch TV.

@TheQueef

That's you that is.

It’s almost like you added a photo of my house! Our neighbour has done the exact same thing. When we moved in a few years ago he believed (falsely) that we were removing our trees and it was the end of the world, complete with letters to the council and loud rants at us.

Since he retired (and has even more time on his hands) if so much as a leaf blows over the fence he’s out and muttering loudly about how those “bloody things have needed chopping down for years”.

If the roots of a massive tree were starting to interfere with OP's gas pipes, would people just say "tough, because trees" and tell her to rip out her central heating and buy lots of expensive little electric heaters instead? Water pipes? "Why are you complaining when you can buy bottled water for only 8p a litre?" etc.

😂 that is an utterly ridiculous comparison. For a start, ruptured gas pipes would be extremely dangerous. Unlike having a poor Sky signal

I have cable TV so it's hardly snobbery.

Sky TV isn't a "basic service".

TV is a basic service - and considered essential, although a few people do choose to opt out (not normally the elderly, vulnerable or other groups with less privilege and fewer alternatives, though). Why do you think TV broadcasting wasn't ordered to stop, and everybody working in TV sent home, during lockdown?

There are a few different ways of receiving it - not all of which are available or suitable for all households - but the method of receiving it is irrelevant. It's like saying that Prosecco is essential if you buy it from Waitrose, but potatoes from Aldi aren't.

@DynamoKev

at the direct expense of my neighbours' access to basic services

Sky TV isn't a "basic service".

There are programmes on Sky that you can't access by other means, so if you want to watch those programmes, then Sky IS essential.

that is an utterly ridiculous comparison. For a start, ruptured gas pipes would be extremely dangerous. Unlike having a poor Sky signal

I know it's not a direct like-for-like, but I maintain that the principle stands. And do you not think that it could also have been dangerous for people with only the TV as their main source of information if, during all of of the official lockdown broadcasts and announcements of restrictions, they had gone about their normal business oblivious of the rules and Covid risks - just because somebody next door had decided that their NDN could get stuffed for receiving TV, because they couldn't be bothered to tidy up a few stray branches - or even allow somebody else to do so?

Even before (and after) all the Covid news and announcements, a lot of people are housebound and live alone, with only the TV for company. Is their mental health less important than a neighbour tidying up some tree overgrowth?

OK, we'll ignore the gas: how would you feel if a neighbour made an arbitrary decision/lack of general maintenance which directly meant that you couldn't access the internet at home?

What if the overgrown trees on/over into your boundary had blocked access to your drive/parking space and stopping you from using it? Would you accept that and cheerfully just walk to the bus stop every time you needed to go out?

There are programmes on Sky that you can't access by other means, so if you want to watch those programmes, then Sky IS essential

Well by that argument @Badbadbunny then BT Sports and Netflix are also essential services

[quote ihavespoken]@SamW98 We had this problem - neighbours with high trees and no cable/fibre available.

The Sky engineer said the dish couldn't be resited but we called an independent engineer/contractor via Rated People to have a look and he did move it - this solved all the problems. So, you are not totally out of options if Sky won't do it. Hope you get sorted[/quote]
This is useful advice

To be honest the more I read OPs newer replies, the more I can sympathise.

Will talking to council just for some advice be helpful? That you want to know what the options are if NDN is not keen on having tree reduced a little in height. The trees along our beautiful tree lined main road are regularly topped by council to prevent them growing too tall. They look ugly when first done every few years but soon fill out again.
But I would still start with can sky dish be re- sited on your property to get a signal first

Thank you all for the latter responses. I do accept my OP wasn't particularly clear which I why I have given more detail and context.

I'm not asking for any trees to be chopped down, I am happy to get someone to do the work myself, I haven't demanded my neighbour does it and pays for it himself, I've lived here since 2003 and this is a recent problem due to the height the trees have grown to. Having looked at the trees this morning, I do think its only a matter of removing some of the branches that have grown and are overhanging.

As the post above says, the council regularly prune the branches and tops of trees in the local area and this is all I think needs to be done, a bit of maintenance.

I still don't think IABU and I do think now I've given further context, most posts understand my POV a bit better

@TheQueef

That's you that is.

😂😂😂😂

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

A friend actually had a 7 year battle with a neighbour over tree roots that had caused subsidence to her property that the neighbour refused to do anything about.

She had cracks in the wall, her outbuilding started to shift and her living room floor was bowing but the neighbour point blank refused to even enter into a discussion.

It was only when his own insurance company advised him that legal proceedings could be taken against him for the cost of the damage that he very reluctantly took action.

My friend didn't want the tree removed if there was another option but she couldn't just sit there and watch her house start to fall apart

@ThursdayWeld

There are programmes on Sky that you can't access by other means, so if you want to watch those programmes, then Sky IS essential

Well by that argument @Badbadbunny then BT Sports and Netflix are also essential services

If they are over a certain height they may be infringing insurance, far more important. If they are overhanging then it's quite reasonable to request they are trimmed, but should be nicely done, not like that half a tree story, and professionally

@ThursdayWeld

There are programmes on Sky that you can't access by other means, so if you want to watch those programmes, then Sky IS essential

Well by that argument @Badbadbunny then BT Sports and Netflix are also essential services

But they’re available by internet.

I can see what the posters mean, the OP is paying for a satellite service.

That's not always an option. We are the only house on our street that can't get sky due to the neighbours trees. There is literally nowhere for the dish to go... We can't get cable or virgin either

No internet on the street? I know rural addresses on copper who can only get 4.5-5Mb broadband for whom streaming services work. Could they have 5 household members all streaming at once? No. But its usable. Others use 4G masts where there is neither cable nor adsl available - but that is life in many rural areas atm.

A key thing here is that the trees predate the houses. I live in a similar area and people like it because of the trees and space and they are protected. That has mean some novel methods by householders to access satellite services (one has a satellite on a shed with cable running to house).

Its a very different situation from "my neighbour planted 50 Leyland Cypress right on my boundary which are now 50' tall and block the light from my windows" to which I suspect there would be far more sympathy. I agree general access to TV signal is a basic service but specific extra services are always going to vary in availability.

I would have asked if I could contribute to bringing forward the next round of routine maintenance of the tree which might well resolve the issues without chopping lumps off the tree. An actual tree surgeon is also more likely to accurately assess if the tree is really causing the issue.

No internet on the street?

Yes we have internet and as I mentioned we can get NowTV but not cable, virgin etc.

The streaming services are not as good as satellite. We can't record, no series link, we have to go through apps for bbc, itv etc so browsing what's on tv is not straightforward.

Sky has much more functionality

Sorry if I've missed this but what sort of trees are they. Are they evergreens?

I missed this too. A line of leylandii is a different ball game from a line of oaks with a tpo on. If OP offers to pay she might get somewhere if the trees are unprotected . With tpos the council will laugh in your face, especially if the reason is to improve the reception of Sky tv!

The trees are mostly Leyland Cypress. Being honest (and I might just never have noticed) I've never seen any evidence of any routine maintenance. The trees just seem to have been left to grow unrestricted.

Actually today I've had a much better look than I ever have before and I am quite shocked how much they do overhang my garden even to the point I can see some of the fence panels starting to move where branches are pushing against and even in a few places, coming through the gaps.

Thanks to all who have given advice. Its actually made me have a good look and realise that this is potentially bigger than just my Sky and that I probably need to have a discussion with my neighbour about the trees needing some maintenance to cut back some of the overhang and to avoid damage to my fence

Have a look at this and see if it helps. We had an unpruned leylandii hedge and in our area the neighbours had to reduce it in height.

The high hedges law linked by Lizzies may be relevant in your case, that’s why I asked what type of trees they are. The council may intervene but you need to have tried to resolve things
www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-hedges-complaining-to-the-council/high-hedges-complaining-to-the-council

I wouldn’t focus on the Sky issue but more generally how the height is now impacting on your use of the garden. Is it creating shade, is the fence at risk, material dropping into the garden affecting plants, soil drying out? Are the trees safe?

Thank you that link is really helpful

I'll wait a day or two then take a completely different approach using the light into my bedroom and the damage to the fence to come to an agreement if we can. I'll definitely offer to split costs

I've done a bit more investigating and it does say that these types of trees should be at least 5 metres from any fences. These ones are no more than one metre. Obviously they predate me living here so I don't know if they were there when the house backed on open fields or they were planted by the neighbour when the houses were built to create privacy. I suppose if they were being added now, we would probably have some right to object at how close they are to our fence but can't change that now, we have to find a workable solution to what we have

Thanks all. despite some of the early comments - I do think I've gotten some got advice and constructive feedback and I have taken it on board for moving forward with this

thursday …. I sense some sarcasm there …. No need for it.

It doesn’t matter the reasoning the OP wants them cut …. Some are overhanging her garden. Therefore, the OP can cut these parts herself, as she asked in her initial post - AIBU if I now cut the tops back myself? They do overhang into my garden anyway?