Property management pays landscape service companies to maintain their landscapes for them. It is expensive. It is certainly fiscally adequate to justify the expectation that this sort of damage would not occur within the landscapes that property management pays landscape service companies to maintain. Now that it did occur, it should be remedied as efficiently as possible by the landscape service company that is justifiably expected to both prevent such damage, and remedy such damage if it occurs. This should not be a complicated concept.

Realistically, this is likely not as egregious as it seems to be. Automated irrigation was likely disabled through the rainy season last winter. It might have been enabled a bit too late into the dry season that began last spring. Hey, it happens. The upper stems of the subject succumbed to desiccation, likely as a result of warm and arid weather. Now that the automated irrigation has been restored, the subject is now attempting to recover from the damage by generating healthy and vigorous new growth relatively low within its canopy. Upper necrosis might remain only because the gardeners are prohibited by their insurance to perform any tasks above a particular height, even with a pole pruner instead of a ladder, and the necrosis is simply too high for them to engage. That task must instead, and perhaps more appropriately, be performed by an arborist. However, the arborist who typically maintains the trees at this particular property would need to charge an expensive minimal fee for this relatively minimal task. It would be more feasible to postpone the task until there is a need for more substantial arboricultural work. The arborist could remove necrosis from this subject within a few minutes, and without charging extra, while at the site to maintain many other larger trees.