Neighbors insurance insist I remove 150 y.o. Oak

[Mr. D]

I’ve recently bought a house in Northwest London, with several tall trees on property. One of them is a 20m+ oak.

One of the things we have inherited from the seller is a long standing dispute with the neighbor, whose insurance company insists that this oak is the cause of subsidence under their garage. 
in our purchase agreement, the seller provided us with funds to meet the demands of the insurance company. We convinced the insurance company to let us pollard the entire tree, rather than cut it to stump which is what they had originally demanded. 
now that we have finished the Pollard in, they insist that actually the tree needs to be reduced by half, that we remove the entire crown and cut it to the halfway point. 
As there is no proof that this tree causes sub, only their insistence of the risk of possibility, we are loathe to destroy such a majestic old tree. 
now I have received a notice saying that if I don’t respond to them with a commitment to act within the next seven days they will take legal action against us. 

unfortunately the tree is not listed or protected by our council. 
Any advice on how I can save my tree?

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Mr. D

[RobRainford]

On 06/08/2022 at 17:40, drinksloe said:

Now if the OP does cut the tree down is there then a chance of it causing heave?

 

(Apologies if i've got it wrong wrong, susbsidence and heave is not something we tend to get in my neck of the woods, so all new to me)

Heave will be going above its ‘normal’ level. 
 

When there has been years of moisture deficit you get re wetting, the ground will begin to turn to its ‘correct’ level. This can take a long time after a trees gone though. 

[john87]

So, let me see.. You bought a house, knowing there was a dispute over a tree and that the neighbours insurance company was involved. The vendor provided you with the funds to comply with the insurance firms demands, but, having agreed to this, you have now changed your mind, and, not only this, you think you will now defy the insurance company.

 

This will only end one way, YOU, will not get legal aid. THEY, do not need it, as, not only have they their very own legal team, they will also have a LOT more money AND expertise AND experience at this sort of thing than you..

 

You can employ all the "experts" and tree huggers you like. All you will do is rack up more and more legal expenses until the day the insurance company act to recover these, and then you will not have a home, never mind a tree..

 

john..

[Retired Climber]

1 minute ago, john87 said:

So, let me see.. You bought a house, knowing there was a dispute over a tree and that the neighbours insurance company was involved. The vendor provided you with the funds to comply with the insurance firms demands, but, having agreed to this, you have now changed your mind, and, not only this, you think you will now defy the insurance company.

 

This will only end one way, YOU, will not get legal aid. THEY, do not need it, as, not only have they their very own legal team, they will also have a LOT more money AND expertise AND experience at this sort of thing than you..

 

You can employ all the "experts" and tree huggers you like. All you will do is rack up more and more legal expenses until the day the insurance company act to recover these, and then you will not have a home, never mind a tree..

 

john..

What a load of nonsense. 

[Sutton]

48 minutes ago, john87 said:

 ... The vendor provided you with the funds to comply with the insurance firms demands, but, having agreed to this, you have now changed your mind, and, not only this, you think you will now defy the insurance company.

I like you John. You with your motorcycle leathers used as PPE dismantling trees in the grounds of a place for the severely unwell 🤣.  Your comment is thought-provoking.

 

You remind me of an old film starring Walter Matthau as Charley Varrick. His character's company motto is "Last of the Independents" - we watched it the other night. If you like anti-corporate lone-wolf 1970s films then have a view sometime.

 

Anyway, I've a legal question for you:

 

Does the OP's private acceptance of "funds" (which in this instance may simply be a discount off the purchase price of the house) constitute a legally bidding contract not only between buyer and seller but also in whatever arbitrary and inconsistent demands the neighbour's insurance legal department comes up with?

 

I would suggest the "funds" are a private matter and the transfer of ownership and thus the responsibility over the tree of the dispute is public, i.e. traceable, documented, etc. The law may have a better understanding of this difference than me though 🤣

 

If the original request to remove the tree was modified by an agreed compromise (the pollarding) and then this is changed again by the insurers back to the original demand (complete removal), then why do you advise the OP to give up and pay up?

 

Haven't the insurers not breeched their contract of the pollarding compromise with the OP? (- granted the insurance company's primary duty is with the structure of the neighbour's property but a contract is still a contract, is it not?)

 

If anyone else has an inkling please chip in 🤣

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, john87 said:

So, let me see.. You bought a house, knowing there was a dispute over a tree and that the neighbours insurance company was involved. The vendor provided you with the funds to comply with the insurance firms demands - What?  Since when did anyone have to comply with the 'demands' of a third party [excluding a Court order] in relation to their own property? , but, having agreed to this, you have now changed your mind, and, not only this, you think you will now defy 🤣 the insurance company.

 

This will only end one way wrong! , YOU, will not get legal aid. THEY, do not need it, as, not only have they their very own legal team, they will also have a LOT more money AND expertise AND experience at this sort of thing than you.. You think so?  Have you ever seen an insurance company 'requirement' for a neighbour to cut down a tree?  I have, happened to a friend of the wife also a house in London - can't remember where exactly.  Very similar circumstances, TPO tree, neighbour claimed subsidence damage to extension and got 'demands' sent from insurance company.  I didn't even have to visit the site - just told the homeowner what to do and say and the neighbour ended up having to fully retract their neck.  Tree remains.

 

You can employ all the "experts" and tree huggers you like. All you will do is rack up more and more legal expenses until the day the insurance company act to recover these, and then you will not have a home, never mind a tree..  Absolute rubbish

 

john..

Are you talking from person experience John...?

[john87]

4 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Are you talking from person experience John...?

I never said that any formal contracts were entered into, how would i know, i was not there, all i am saying is, why would anyone [other than an idiot] want to risk a trip to court especially, up against an insurance company?? Even a legal letter writing exchange with them is going to cost bundles.. Going up against them in court, where, if you lose, not only will you be paying your own costs, but theirs too, would be foolish to say the least..

 

john..

[Retired Climber]

4 minutes ago, john87 said:

I never said that any formal contracts were entered into, how would i know, i was not there, all i am saying is, why would anyone [other than an idiot] want to risk a trip to court especially, up against an insurance company?? Even a legal letter writing exchange with them is going to cost bundles.. Going up against them in court, where, if you lose, not only will you be paying your own costs, but theirs too, would be foolish to say the least..

 

john..

Not everyone asks " how high?", when someone tells them to jump. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Retired Climber

[john87]

4 hours ago, Sutton said:

I like you John. You with your motorcycle leathers used as PPE dismantling trees in the grounds of a place for the severely unwell 🤣.  Your comment is thought-provoking.

 

You remind me of an old film starring Walter Matthau as Charley Varrick. His character's company motto is "Last of the Independents" - we watched it the other night. If you like anti-corporate lone-wolf 1970s films then have a view sometime.

 

Anyway, I've a legal question for you:

 

Does the OP's private acceptance of "funds" (which in this instance may simply be a discount off the purchase price of the house) constitute a legally bidding contract not only between buyer and seller but also in whatever arbitrary and inconsistent demands the neighbour's insurance legal department comes up with?

 

I would suggest the "funds" are a private matter and the transfer of ownership and thus the responsibility over the tree of the dispute is public, i.e. traceable, documented, etc. The law may have a better understanding of this difference than me though 🤣

 

If the original request to remove the tree was modified by an agreed compromise (the pollarding) and then this is changed again by the insurers back to the original demand (complete removal), then why do you advise the OP to give up and pay up?

 

Haven't the insurers not breeched their contract of the pollarding compromise with the OP? (- granted the insurance company's primary duty is with the structure of the neighbour's property but a contract is still a contract, is it not?)

 

If anyone else has an inkling please chip in 🤣

No Idea, but as i said a minute ago, anyone would have to be stupid to ignore the insurance company. The OP stated that they [the insurance company] have told him that he has to comply within seven days or they will commence legal action.. This will mean nothing to them, it will mean a great deal to the OP if he loses.. The costs would be unbelievable..

 

Why risk that for a tree??

 

john..

[john87]

1 minute ago, Retired Climber said:

Not everyone asks " how high?", when someone tells them to jump. 

I know that, but a trip to the high court against an insurance company [that have with limitless resources] is not something to be taken lightly. They have already stated they will commence legal action; I would suggest they mean it..

 

john..

[Retired Climber]

1 minute ago, john87 said:

I know that, but a trip to the high court against an insurance company [that have with limitless resources] is not something to be taken lightly. They have already stated they will commence legal action; I would suggest they mean it..

 

john..

I don't mean this in a derogatory way, and I'm not taking a cheap dig, so please take this question in the spirit it's written. Do you have much experience with the law, courts, and what happens in the English legal system?