Insurers of next door property demanding trees be felled, what options do tree owners have?

[TreeAbility]

Advice please for how a homeowner can respond to next doors insurers telling them to fell 2 very large Oaks 100 plus years old. 

The insurers have dug trial pits and found Oak roots so asking for the removal of both trees. My customers not keen to remove them as beautiful trees. 

Don't think crack monitoring has been done to establish if there is seasonal movement. 

Would a root barrier be an option instead of removal or fairly robust Crown reduction? 

How can the customers get advice without it costing thousands or do they just acquiesce to the insurers demands as they don't want to take liability for any more damage if they leave the trees? 

Any thoughts appreciated.

Riding Oaks Site Investigations.pdf

Edited January 20 by TreeAbility
added subsidence report

[Excels1or]

Should you be loading docs with clients details/contacts on?

[TreeAbility]

13 hours ago, Excels1or said:

Should you be loading docs with clients details/contacts on?

They gave me permission to post on here!  But yes valid question!  

[Mark Bolam]

It seems they have done enough to indicate that the oaks are the problem, and removal is probably the only long term solution.

 

It begs the question though, why build a shitty bungalow so near to a couple of oak trees, on shrinkable clay?

 

It’s pretty shameful really.

[Excels1or]

31 minutes ago, TreeAbility said:

They gave me permission to post on here!  But yes valid question!  

Just checking 😊

[Dan Maynard]

On 20/01/2024 at 15:48, TreeAbility said:

as they don't want to take liability for any more damage if they leave the trees? 

This is the problem, I think what you would need is someone who is insured to give advice, so that their insurance covers the liability. Then the insurers argue, the lawyers win, but at least the customers are insulated from that.

 

I think that such advice would cost a lot of money for this reason.

[Steven P]

Looking at it, it might be worth asking when the cracks started appearing, and going to google earth which the app version lets you go back in time. So.... if the 2 trees are there and at that size well before the cracks started you -might- be able to argue that since the trees haven't changed there must be a more recent change that has caused the cracking. The google earth thing just as proof of their size and so on. Could you also look at the pond north of the house to see if it has more / less water in in recent years than historically - these 2 trees have nothing to do with the water level in the pond but drier / wetter weather would, again -might- be an indication of other causes. Likewise has the farmer cleared or created a drainage ditch round the field. Can't blame the trees for a dry summer. Have their engineers assessed and discounted all of these?

 

Could cause them to go back and investigate further. 

 

Not sure if there is a value you can apply to 2 mature oaks in the garden, and I don't know the answer here, but supposing they were felled and the house continued to crack, is there compensation on offer to the tree owner? Again another question that you can ask their insurers and engineers.

 

Anyway. aske enough questions of the engineers and the report - being awkward so if the trees do go at least you know you have no friends at their insurers

[Mark Bolam]

We have piss wet winters now.

The clay expands.

 

Our summers now are basically a drought.

Clay contacts.

 

Fell a couple of 100 year old oak trees.

 

Shitty house still subsides and shows cracking every year.

 

’It was the trees that did it’.

 

The planners that allowed it, the architect who specced the insubstantial  footings, and the builder who built it all just walk away.

 

The poor bastard next door who is the proud owner of two decent oaks is now facing a bill of thousands to remove them.

 

What a great world we live in.

[daltontrees]

Damage may be related to a. subsidence due to inadequate foundations b. differential subsidence due to general drought conditions or c. subsidence due to dessication and shrinkage of clays due to tree water uptake. Or all three.

The thing that jumps out of the report is that the foundation and BH2 is only 1 metre deep, but 2.1m deep at BH1. This differential alone may be enough to contribute to or be the cause of differential settlement. The shallowness of the BH1 foundation is the absulute minimum NHBC for the situation. But some calculations might show that the foundation is adequate for the distance and species of the trees.

Another notable popint is that the borehole logs show the clays to be 'very sandy, very silty', which generally means low shrinkability.

Whereas the inadequacy of foundations is not a complete defense to claims for subsidence damage, it may be a contributory defense. Essentially if the house had been built with inadequate foundations it could be for the building designer to prove that they made adequate provision for subsidence risk. Depends on the age of the house too.

Based on the report provided, the case has not really been proven. there might also be a follow-up claim for foundation repair costs. There's always a risk that the tree owner is being taken for a mug to pay for stuff that is not their liability. Without independent advice and representaiton the tree owner might never know if this is happening.

I hope the tree owner has building insurance. If so, pass the whole thing to the insurers asap.

A substantial reduction wold only be effective if the trees are responsible and if it was repeated regularly. forever.

Good useful and valuable advice costs money. Sounds like it is worth resisting tree removal initially, particularly as this wold look like admission of liability in a  subsequent claim for foundation repair costs.

Don't get formally involved is my general advice. And be careful what you share in public.

[Jon Heuch]

On 20/01/2024 at 15:48, TreeAbility said:

 

Would a root barrier be an option instead of removal or fairly robust Crown reduction? 

How can the customers get advice without it costing thousands or do they just acquiesce to the insurers demands as they don't want to take liability for any more damage if they leave the trees? 

Any thoughts appreciated.

Advice doesn't cost "thousands"; an experienced arboricultural consultant should have sufficient experience of subsidence to know how things might progress. Pass them across if you wish.

Without an engineer's report describing the damage, its severity and timing we are all in the dark as to what has happened.

Forget a crown reduction - probably only a delaying tactic if the tree or trees are causing the damage.

Two oak trees - one 13.5 metres and one 22 metres away. These silly arb reports (slightly better than the other lot) don't give even an indication of stem thickness but assuming the distances are correct and the trees of similar size it might be possible to remove the closest and leave the one further away..

At 13.5 metres distance lots of potential to install a root barrier but it will be more expensive to install than tree removal.

As for telling a tree owner to contact their building insurer it is their contents insurance that may cover the risk; if they only have one insurance policy covering both it doesn't matter. If the neighbour is not a domestic tree owner things get a little more complex.