house damaged by subsidence caused by neighbours trees

[neiln]

I unfortunately have an ongoing issue with subsidence caused by shrinkage of desiccated clay soil as a result of mature Oak trees in 2 neighbouring properties. My house insurance is being of limited value and I'm seeking some advice on the legal position and possible ways to resolve this.  I'd prefer not to put details on the forum though, if anyone would be willing to offer some advice  by private messaging that would be a great help.  Thank you

[NatB]

Hi, Just wondering if your issue with subsidence got resolved and did the neighbours removed their trees? Facing the same problem now and maybe you could point me in a right direction on how to take this further (insurers confirmed the subsidence caused by trees in the neighbours garden, but they haven't removed them & my house continue to sink & loose its value). Would highly appreciate your advice :) Thank you. Natallia

[neiln]

Finally I got the tree removed. My insurers were not pursuing my neighbour, despite their own lawyers assessment that we had a strong case. I took matters into my own hands and wrote a notice of intention to act. My neighbour finally acted and the tree was removed.

 

If you are suffering subsidence as a result of a neighbour's tree, I feel for you.

[Guest Gimlet]

I had a similar problem at my mother's house. But I got lucky. When the neighbour died the house was taken over by an equity release company and put on the market. Before it was sold or anyone had visited, I went round and killed the tree. Immediately on taking possession, the new owners put in a planning application for a substantial extension. I responded through the planning portal, that as the applicant's immediate neighbour, I would not object to the application, provided the dead tree near our boundary and a couple of others that could threaten my mother's house were removed. They agreed, and the trees came down. 

 

That was a in a tree conservation area as well. Could have been so much more difficult. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Gimlet

[neiln]

What evidence you ask? Bore holes and soil samples, root  samples from them and Arborist reports over a period of a decade.  ... In short ... More then plenty. As I said, even the insurance company's solicitor considered the case to be very strong and most likely to be won, and was perplexed why they weren't proceeding to court.  As soon as I initiated court action myself, my neighbour removed the tree.

Edited June 6, 2022 by neiln

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It is ENCOURAGING to hear that an insurance company ISN’T making an immediate and unfounded decision to seek tree removal  based upon the trees being the presumed cause without any substantial evidence to support such an assumption. 

 

Not good for for OPs peace of mind though. 

 

What basis is there to assume trees are the cause and that removal (of somebody else’s property) will solve the problem?

 

Starting point might be exploratory digs to ascertain which, if any, roots are in the vicinity of foundations. 

 

When you have demonstrated what is present it might be possible to start forming opinions on likelihood of any contribution to assumed subsidence. 

 

Look at it the other way....

 

You:  I think your property is damaging my property so I want you to pay to remove it. 

 

Me:  What evidence do you have to support this request?

 

You: Err, none but it’s trees - they cause subsidence. 

 

Me:  Err, OK, good day.