"Camdenballs"

(with apologies to "Private Eye")

What is local government ultimately about if it is not to do with delivering responsive, high quality services efficiently?

I refuse to believe that anyone - least of all a Senior Service Manager at Camden - could say that a dead tree at 95 Parkhill Road was actually at 63 Parkhill Road - due to a typing error! I have tried for over 20 minutes to replicate this typing error - even by typing with my elbows and feet - but have been completely unsuccessful.

So what is all this about?

In October last year I reported that there were three trees on the Fleet Road Estate which had been dead for between 2 and 3 years. This "Camdenballs" relates to the tree shown in Photograph 1 on the right.

The Council's Arboriculture Section seems to have been told; and its Manager then reported that the tree in Photograph 1 was in the garden of 63 Parkhill Road and on land “ ....demised to the leaseholder, therefore the tree is effectively privately owned, however ownership status will be checked”.

I disputed that the location of the tree was at 63 Parkhill Road and said that it was at 95 Parkhill Road - a considerable distance away. At this point the Manager said that I was correct and that 63 was actually a typing error for 95!

What's the big deal then?

The tree is privately owned by the leaseholder of 95 Parkhill Road - according to the Manager - and, therefore, not the responsibility of the Council. If that was so why was a second tree a few feet away on the same piece of ground removed by the same Arboricultural Section 2-3 years ago?

But now that it is six months on from October 2011, did the Manager check the ownership as she/he said they were going to?

As there is no evidence one way or another that such a check was carried out, and because extensive work was undertaken last week to the trees in and around the Fleet Road Estate - bar the tree in Photograph 1 - it is reasonable to conclude that the Service Manager had checked and was satisfied that the tree was the responsibility of the leaseholder of 95 Parkhill Road.

But wait a minute; I am one of the two leaseholders of 95 Parkhill Road and the title deed in my possession (and readily downloadable from the Land Registry web site) does not include the "demised land" as alleged by the Service Manager: I have seen my neighbour's lease and it is identical to mine.

Clearly, the Council's Manager doesn't know what she/he is talking about: but worse, I refuse to believe that Camden's Legal Department is so inept that it could not have provided this information almost instantly if asked. I think this incident definitely qualifies as an excellent example of "Camdenballs" a la Private Eye.

To see an "edited" version of the "exchange" between Camden and me on this issue click here (names of innocent people have been redacted in order to protect the guilty). It ought to be clear by now that if this tree were to collapse and cause an injury and/or any damage whatsoever it will definitely be Camden's entire responsibility.