Tree Risk Records and Public Liability

Public tree failure can cause property damage, injury or worse. When that happens, the council's tree risk record becomes the centre of any review or claim. The question is rarely whether the council had a register. The question is whether the council had a defensible process and whether the records support that the process was followed.

What defensibility actually means

Defensibility is not perfection. No council inspects every tree often enough to guarantee no failure between inspections. Defensibility means the council can show:

• a documented inspection methodology consistent with industry practice
• a risk rating framework applied consistently
• evidence that the methodology was actually followed
• timely action on identified high-risk trees
• closeout against the record when work was completed
• a routine review cycle, not just ad-hoc inspections after complaints

The record does not need to claim certainty. It needs to demonstrate diligence.

The fields a defensible tree risk record needs

A risk record that holds up under review typically includes:

• date of inspection and inspector identity
• inspection method (visual, level 1, level 2)
• identified defects with severity
• risk rating using a documented framework
• recommended action and target timeframe
• closeout when the action is complete, with contractor and date
• attached photos and forms supporting the assessment

When that information is consistently captured on the tree record, the council can answer the questions that always come up after an incident: when was this tree last inspected, what did the inspector find, what action was recommended, was it completed, and what evidence supports each step.

Where risk records commonly fail

The most common failure is the gap between identified risk and completed action. The inspection identified that the tree required pruning within three months. The work order was raised. The contractor visited. The job closed in finance. The tree record was never updated. The defect notes still show the original concern.

That gap is hard to defend. It looks like the council identified the risk and did nothing about it, even when in fact the work was done.

The fix is to ensure that closeout updates the tree record, with evidence attached, and that risk-rated trees appear on a follow-up list until they are closed out.

Routine review, not crisis review

Defensibility is built in normal times, not during incidents. A council that reviews its risk-rated tree list quarterly — confirming which ones have had action, which ones are still open, and whether any have aged past their target timeframe — is operating defensibly. The records are not perfect, but they show diligence and continuous attention.

A council that only reviews tree risk after a complaint or incident is operating reactively. Records made under pressure rarely have the structure and evidence that records made routinely do.