In review of all the facts surrounding the situation I have come to the conclusion that Andy's Tree Service is in fact not responsible to damage of a [redacted] shed located at [redacted] St., [redacted], NY [redacted]. Andy's Tree Service contracted with Mrs. [redacted] on August 3, 2016 to perform work at...
her residence. The work involved trimming her trees that were encroaching on her three neighbors properties. The law states what is in your yard is you the homeowners responsibility not the neighbors were the tree exists. Mrs. [redacted] is a good neighbor and wanted to take responsibility for her trees. On August 12 four of my employees performed the contracted work. 1 - 3 inch branches were trimmed above the shed. The material was removed from the premises. On September 6 Mrs. [redacted] called stating her neighbor Mr. [redacted] contacted her saying we dropped a limb on his shed and broke plastic catchers that held the shed together. I have a dated documentation of this call. I told Mrs. [redacted] I would speak to my employees and we would examine the shed. I spoke with my employees that day. They stated; 1. The size of the branches we're not large enough to damage the shed. 2. That a female was home and watch the work being performed. That they did not stand on the shed and all work was performed off a fence. I have very trustworthy employees and know that they would take responsibility if they did the damage. Within 1 to 2 days the shed was examined and noted what was observed; 1. the homeowner please tape across the shed. 2. There were cut branches on the ground by the fence that we they did not leave there. Pictures were taken. I called Mrs. [redacted] back, I do not have documentation of this conversation but Mrs. [redacted] can testify that I spoke with her. I informed her that we did not do the damage to the shed based on the size of the limbs and that we did not work off the shed. She did say to me that she also did not think so because she also observed the work being done. I told her to give her neighbor my phone number and to call me directly. The homer did call and spoke with David around September 10th. David told them that he would meet with them within two weeks. David did not call back to set a time, the homeowner called again. David called them back to set a time and they agreed on after 5 o'clock. The crew went there to resolve the problem. Mr. [redacted] walked them back to the shed. Don pointed out the size of the cut branches, he also pointed out the pile of branches that were on the ground that were not there anymore, and said to Mr. [redacted]'s wife you were home while the work was being performed. The conversation got heated very quickly at this point. The homeowner said they would bad mouth our company on the internet. Don said take us to court. The homeowners said you are now trespassing and requested they remove themselves from their property, which they did.
In review of all the facts surrounding the situation I have come to the conclusion that Andy's Tree Service is in fact not responsible to damage of a [redacted] shed located at [redacted] St., [redacted], NY [redacted]. Andy's Tree Service contracted with Mrs. [redacted] on August 3, 2016 to perform work at...
her residence. The work involved trimming her trees that were encroaching on her three neighbors properties. The law states what is in your yard is you the homeowners responsibility not the neighbors were the tree exists. Mrs. [redacted] is a good neighbor and wanted to take responsibility for her trees. On August 12 four of my employees performed the contracted work. 1 - 3 inch branches were trimmed above the shed. The material was removed from the premises. On September 6 Mrs. [redacted] called stating her neighbor Mr. [redacted] contacted her saying we dropped a limb on his shed and broke plastic catchers that held the shed together. I have a dated documentation of this call. I told Mrs. [redacted] I would speak to my employees and we would examine the shed. I spoke with my employees that day. They stated; 1. The size of the branches we're not large enough to damage the shed. 2. That a female was home and watch the work being performed. That they did not stand on the shed and all work was performed off a fence. I have very trustworthy employees and know that they would take responsibility if they did the damage. Within 1 to 2 days the shed was examined and noted what was observed; 1. the homeowner please tape across the shed. 2. There were cut branches on the ground by the fence that we they did not leave there. Pictures were taken. I called Mrs. [redacted] back, I do not have documentation of this conversation but Mrs. [redacted] can testify that I spoke with her. I informed her that we did not do the damage to the shed based on the size of the limbs and that we did not work off the shed. She did say to me that she also did not think so because she also observed the work being done. I told her to give her neighbor my phone number and to call me directly. The homer did call and spoke with David around September 10th. David told them that he would meet with them within two weeks. David did not call back to set a time, the homeowner called again. David called them back to set a time and they agreed on after 5 o'clock. The crew went there to resolve the problem. Mr. [redacted] walked them back to the shed. Don pointed out the size of the cut branches, he also pointed out the pile of branches that were on the ground that were not there anymore, and said to Mr. [redacted]'s wife you were home while the work was being performed. The conversation got heated very quickly at this point. The homeowner said they would bad mouth our company on the internet. Don said take us to court. The homeowners said you are now trespassing and requested they remove themselves from their property, which they did.