To ask for advice on neighbour’s tree?

[TreeHelp]

(NC for this)

Our house is being affected by subsidence caused by a neighbour’s trees - 2 large lime trees at the bottom of her garden. We’ve had cracks in walls, doors slipping in frames for about 12 months now, all reported to insurance company. The structural engineer, arbocultural report, and soil/root samples all concluded that the lime trees were causing the damage.

They wrote to the neighbour about 6 months ago to request removal of the tree, and regularly since then. She has not responded save to acknowledge receipt of the first letter.

Now the insurance company wish to close the claim, and have proposed using Geotherm to inject ground stabilisers underneath our foundations. It also transpired that this neighbour’s trees caused a problem to another house on our street back in 2012 and she was issued with a legal notice of nuisance back then (we have a copy of this).

I just feel so angry and powerless. Her trees are causing massive damage to at least two houses, and she can simply ignore the letters from the insurance company and gets away Scot free.

Do we have any legal remedy? Anyone any advice? The loss adjusters suggested that there would be no point pursuing legal damages as even if damages were awarded, it would be v hard to enforce payment. I really just want the trees removed but failing that I want to be able to do something

Post in legal OP.

I love trees an inordinate amount (in fact just about to complete on a house on a Lime tree lined avenue all with TPOs and backing onto woodland!) but this is not on.

Will the insurance company not pay for remedial works from your side (I.e. root removal on your property). Perhaps you could get a tree surgeon out to consult/quote?!

This is so unfair. I have a tree in my garden for which I pay a tree surgeon to keep under control. The neighbour at the end of my garden has a similar tree which he has let run riot and much of it is now hanging over my wall, looks a bloody mess and is becoming dangerously high. Owner isn’t interested so it seems my only option is to pay my tree surgeon to deal with this tree too. There should be some way of enforcing the tree owner to maintain their trees in a safe condition. It shouldn’t be for others to have to bear the cost.

I would go round again. I think that she might think it polite to do so and think it's rude not to talk to her in person about it.

We had a similar problem but in reverse - a letter from neighbour’s insurers to say that our trees were causing them problems and subsidence and they didn’t bother to talk to us first which we wished they had of done.

They have a lot of trees around them so I don’t know quite how they quantify how much damage is due to our trees vs theirs.

As it turns out the trees are not ours and we have also discovered that the official land registry borders of the property are not the same as the actual borders of the property - which match the plan in the deeds as being the borders and so I’m now trying to sort that pickle out.

But the letter that came through from the insurers was fairly direct and basically said that if we didn’t contact them within 2 weeks and then didn’t do anything then they reserved the right to do the work and charge us (£3k!) plus bill us for any additional damage as a result of the delay.

Could the insurers do the work and charge her?

We were also told that if we did the work they suggested but the stump started to grow again or if another tree grew big there, we would be liable for the damages. So if you (or insurers or neighbours) only half do her tree with the bits overhanging - are you still covered on your insurance for additional damage or would you become liable? Worth checking out (apologies if this is something you’ve already been through).

have the experts said the tree needs to come out. If you remove a large tree, this can cause massive issues since the tree will currently be sucking up all the water around its roots. If the force from the tree has destablised your house and then the tree is removed you could actually have even bigger problems. As such, the insurance company may have another reason for leaving the issue of the tree and focusing instead on the underpinning.

have the experts said the tree needs to come out

Yes. Apparently the industry is moving away from concerns about “heave” as leaving the tree in situ is more likely to cause recurrent and unpredictable damage year on year. Both structural engineer and arboculturalist recommended removal of the trees.

Could the insurers do the work and charge her?

Our insurers are willing to pay for the removal entirely and not charge her anything, but she’s refusing to even engage with them.

We were also told that if we did the work they suggested but the stump started to grow again or if another tree grew big there, we would be liable for the damages. So if you (or insurers or neighbours) only half do her tree with the bits overhanging - are you still covered on your insurance for additional damage or would you become liable?

I don’t know about this, but I do know that what’s proposed is cutting the tree down to ground level and then killing off the stump with poison to ensure it doesn’t grow again.

Taking into account the previous action from a neighbouring house and her refusal to engage, I’d go straight to small claims. She has ignored previous claims, your insurance claim so I wouldn’t be fannying around on this.

Don't you have things growing in your border?

We did and we knew salting the border would kill the shrubs but we didn’t feel we had any other choice and the tree was getting to the point where it was dangerously huge and if it fell it would likely destroy part of our house.
We had the borders cleared and replaced with gravel and now have plants and shrubs in pots along it.

I don't understand why the insurers aren't pursuing legal action. That's the sort of thing the legal cover on home insurance is for.

if the insurers are not pursuing it they may also insure the person with the trees.

You really need to post in legal OP as I fear you're getting a bit of dodgy advice here. My understanding of the law is that you are entitled to cut branches that overhang your side of the boundary, or roots that encroach onto your land, HOWEVER if taking either of these actions results in damage to the tree (causes it to fall over, causes it to die, allows disease in via wounds etc) then you are vulnerable to legal action from the owner of the tree. But I'm by no means an expert either. You really do need some proper legal advice before you do anything to the tree or its roots.