Neighbour insurance company requesting tree felled

[FBNK]

I realise there is a similar thread in this forum, but I wanted to hear what people thought in a situation where our neighbour's insurance company has 'strongly recommended' that a large tree in our garden is felled due to subsidence to their extension. In this case, roots have been found  below foundation level that come from the same family of tree in our garden. The insurance company is asking that several trees in our area are felled. Our tree had a 50% crown reduction this summer, and we thought this might be enough to satisfy the insurer with a promise of regular pruning (this had unfortunately been neglected for several years before we moved in last year).

 

Do you know how long it would take before the crown reduction would have enough effect that it stops causing damage?

 

Is there any way of satisfying the neighbours insurers without removing the tree?

 

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[JAG63]

Is it your issue? Your post suggests that the tree predates the extension, if so are the foundations to the extension compliant with building regs? Have the roots been proven to be the cause through seasonal crack measurement? Most councils will experience such claims and many have detail of the evidence they require to point the finger at the tree on their websites, the same should apply in this case. Many insurers attempt to shortcut the process and avoid the expense by pointing fingers with insufficient evidence and demand felling. 

[daltontrees]

We do not have enough information to answer the questions. Where is this? Are there shrinkable clays and a peristent soil moisture deficit? Are the foundations designed appropriately according to NHBC guidelines? Would removal of the tree(s) cause heave in your own property? What species of tree, what distance, what lifestage?

 

At some point you ought to pass this request to your own insurers.

[Retired Climber]

10 hours ago, GarethM said:

Providing you are happy for the tree to be removed, if they want it gone, then it should be done entirely at their cost including any remediation and putting right of boundaries, patio space etc etc 

Is that in any way based on fact, or have you just made it up?

[FBNK]

On 30/10/2022 at 21:18, JAG63 said:

Is it your issue? Your post suggests that the tree predates the extension, if so are the foundations to the extension compliant with building regs? Have the roots been proven to be the cause through seasonal crack measurement? Most councils will experience such claims and many have detail of the evidence they require to point the finger at the tree on their websites, the same should apply in this case. Many insurers attempt to shortcut the process and avoid the expense by pointing fingers with insufficient evidence and demand felling. 

Thank you for your help.  The tree in our garden is a False Acacia. The extension was built in 2007. Foundations are concrete, depth 1300mm. Soil clay. Our tree is 4.95m from extension and before crown reduction was approximately 11m tall, 3.7m diameter, and 11m crown spread.  

 

In the first site investigation, roots were found to a depth of 2.2m bgl in TP/BH1  from a shrub from the family Oleaceae. These roots were not considered to be the primary causal vegetation. 

 

The second site investigation recovered roots to a depth of 2.3m bgl and recovered samples were identified as Leguminosae and Salicaceae. They said the  source of the Leguminosae roots are our tree, and confirmed that this is because of its influence on the soils below the foundation level. The source of the Salicaceae roots is probably from a tree further afield. 

 

They are recommending that the false acacia (our tree) alongside many other shrubs and trees we recommend that the False Acacia along with many other trees and shrubs are removed (Norway Spruce, Ash, shrub and laurel).

 

The tree is in North London and there seems to be no regard for the environmental and social benefits of the trees. 

[FBNK]

On 31/10/2022 at 07:21, daltontrees said:

We do not have enough information to answer the questions. Where is this? Are there shrinkable clays and a peristent soil moisture deficit? Are the foundations designed appropriately according to NHBC guidelines? Would removal of the tree(s) cause heave in your own property? What species of tree, what distance, what lifestage?

 

At some point you ought to pass this request to your own insurers.

Thank you for your help.  Our insurer is aware of the issue, but have not given us any further support and have advised that we remove the tree. There seems to be no regard for the environmental and social benefits of the trees, would we be within our rights to ask for a root barrier to be installed because otherwise there will be no tree left in the area!

 

We are in North London. The soils are clay.

The tree in our garden is a False Acacia. The extension was built in 2007. Foundations are concrete, depth 1300mm. Our tree is 4.95m from extension and before crown reduction was approximately 11m tall, 3.7m diameter, and 11m crown spread.  I do not know whether the foundations were designed appropriately. 

 

 

In the first site investigation, roots were found to a depth of 2.2m bgl in TP/BH1  from a shrub from the family Oleaceae. These roots were not considered to be the primary causal vegetation. 

 

The second site investigation recovered roots to a depth of 2.3m bgl and recovered samples were identified as Leguminosae and Salicaceae. They said the  source of the Leguminosae roots are our tree, and confirmed that this is because of its influence on the soils below the foundation level. The source of the Salicaceae roots is probably from a tree further afield. 

 

They are recommending that the false acacia (our tree) alongside many other shrubs and trees we recommend that the False Acacia along with many other trees and shrubs are removed (Norway Spruce, Ash, shrub and laurel).

 

 

[FBNK]

On 30/10/2022 at 20:45, neiln said:

Crown reduction will have an immediate affect upon the water the tree tales up so if subsidence movement was seen this year, a year later, it's not enough.  You could potentially, depending on layout, find other solutions, like root barrier. They will be very much more costly though. I'd strongly suggest you take the tree down.

Hi Neil, Thank you for your response. 

Next door neighbours insurance have consulted an arboriculture company who have said that "given the movement recorded to date, if new growth is allowed to develop in 2023 there is a high and foreseeable risk of further movement/damage occurring and our position remains that the tree should be removed as soon as possible."

We are attached to the tree and it gives privacy to many of the flats in the surrounding area. Do you know who would be responsible for putting in a root barrier, would it be our neighbour with the subsidence issues or ourselves? Have you ever been in a situation where insurance companies have covered this?

Thanks again for your help

 

 

[neiln]

35 minutes ago, FBNK said:

Hi Neil, Thank you for your response. 

Next door neighbours insurance have consulted an arboriculture company who have said that "given the movement recorded to date, if new growth is allowed to develop in 2023 there is a high and foreseeable risk of further movement/damage occurring and our position remains that the tree should be removed as soon as possible."

We are attached to the tree and it gives privacy to many of the flats in the surrounding area. Do you know who would be responsible for putting in a root barrier, would it be our neighbour with the subsidence issues or ourselves? Have you ever been in a situation where insurance companies have covered this?

Thanks again for your help

 

 

You are responsible.  Your tree's roots are trespassing when they leave your property and consequently you are liable for any damage they cause.  The insurance companies really really don't like to do it, but can take you to court for the costs of all repairs.  They are offering to pay to remove the tree as it's the best solution for their insured property, quickest and cheap for everyone.  They don't have to offer to pay though, it's your tree and your responsibility.

 

I strongly urge you to think of the neighbours, who have a house being damaged, significantly affecting it's value.  It will be incredibly stressful for them.  If you pursue keeping the tree, you'll need very very very deep pockets.

[JAG63]

I am assuming that your false acacia predates the extension in which case it should have been taken into account in the construction of that extension as from the detail you provide it is within the zone of influence of the tree. You may find the NHBC guidance useful

4.2 Building near trees - NHBC Standards 2022 NHBC Standards 2022

NHBC-STANDARDS.CO.UK

---

4.2 Building near trees

Further discussion of potential heave with your insurers and what that may mean for your continued cover and premiums would be prudent. I am not an engineer but a quick run through the detail you provided, which doesn't include the effect of other trees, suggests that the foundations to the extension should have a minimum depth of 1.89m and that mitigating potential heave is even more complex were this and additional trees/shrubs to be removed. Sometimes the more expensive option works out more cost effective in the long run, there is also the goodwill factor of course.

[doobin]

On 04/11/2022 at 09:43, neiln said:

You are responsible.  Your tree's roots are trespassing when they leave your property and consequently you are liable for any damage they cause.  The insurance companies really really don't like to do it, but can take you to court for the costs of all repairs.  They are offering to pay to remove the tree as it's the best solution for their insured property, quickest and cheap for everyone.  They don't have to offer to pay though, it's your tree and your responsibility.

 

I strongly urge you to think of the neighbours, who have a house being damaged, significantly affecting it's value.  It will be incredibly stressful for them.  If you pursue keeping the tree, you'll need very very very deep pockets.

Is it really that simple? The tree roots could all be on his side, but the water they absorb causing subsidence- due to shoddy building work- after the tree was there first!

[neiln]

1 hour ago, doobin said:

Is it really that simple? The tree roots could all be on his side, but the water they absorb causing subsidence- due to shoddy building work- after the tree was there first!

OP said test pits and bore holes had been done to take soil samples and roots found.  While I too would have thought desiccation could extend beyond the roots, when I was in a similar situation and discussing with engineer and arborist, I was told desiccation beyond the roots was minimal.  Legally though, if op kept the tree roots to their own property any remaining desiccation and damage would not be their responsibility.

 

We are talking about a pseudo acacia here.  Not the prettiest of trees, not a native tree and not a long lived tree.  It's not a tree I'd go into bat for.