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

[goblinlogail]

This seems a good general introduction...

 

https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/types/trees/the-law

 

It might also be worth talking to an insurance broker, as the report now exists and thus a "material fact" that an insurance company may in the future claim to be misrepresentation and/or non-disclosure if the aggrieved neighbour's insurance company did in said future make a claim of trespassing roots, and/or negligence on the part of the oak owning neighbour.

[john87]

Well, if the roots are on the neighbours land, they have every right to remove them, regardless of trees or anything else..

 

john..

[Joe Newton]

3 hours ago, john87 said:

Well, if the roots are on the neighbours land, they have every right to remove them, regardless of trees or anything else..

 

john..

You have no idea what you're talking about. 

[john87]

17 hours ago, Joe Newton said:

You have no idea what you're talking about. 

Ha ha.. Ok, best you all read this then..

 

UK case law and trespassing roots (and subsidence) – Arboriculture

ARBORICULTURE.WORDPRESS.COM

---

An investigation of the case law in the UK relating to trespassing roots and subsidence.

 

john..

[Joe Newton]

Congratulations, you can use Google. Did you actually bother to read it though?

 

"This is not reasonable, in terms of current case law precedent. In severing these roots on the tension side, the line of trees were left at significant risk of windthrow."

 

 

 

If by pruning roots or branches back to the boundary you cause the tree to become unsafe, you could well be held liable for the removal/replacement or any damages caused should the tree then fail.

 

It's generally better not to give advice on matters you don't understand. 

[josharb87]

On 21/01/2024 at 23:02, Mark Bolam said:

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.

 

great isn’t it! 
 

taking a snippet out of John’s link, This ultimately sets the shape of things that were to come, as the precedent set was one of outlining how a tree owner must be able to recognise that trees, by virtue of their mere presence, can cause problems. Failing to recognise this and deal with such problems appropriately is, therefore, negligent.

 

In which case building a house near established tree’s should also be a recognisable problem and therefore negligence on the planners part! 

[Mark Bolam]

That’s my point entirely Josh.

 

If the trees predate the building it’s definitely down to piss poor planning!

[goblinlogail]

I'm not sure for the need for the ad hominem attacks - play the ball not the man as I was once instructed to by a judge. The original link, and the one below clearly states - like most things in common law - that there is a balance of rights and responsibilities. i.e. the right to remove roots/branches from your land, but the responsibility to take "reasonable care" in doing so.

 

https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/GuideToTreesAndTheLaw-Web.pdf

 

Going back to the OP they were asking for advice - I gave them advise going forward from an insurance PoV especially if they renewal with a different company etc. and potentially concealing a "material fact". I think by the nature of this forum we can all agree it is a shame that two oak trees could be felled, but also if your property was being damaged, and you had a report telling you the cause you'd be aggrieved too, and want to seek a remedy; would you not?

[john87]

3 hours ago, Joe Newton said:

Congratulations, you can use Google. Did you actually bother to read it though?

 

"This is not reasonable, in terms of current case law precedent. In severing these roots on the tension side, the line of trees were left at significant risk of windthrow."

 

 

 

If by pruning roots or branches back to the boundary you cause the tree to become unsafe, you could well be held liable for the removal/replacement or any damages caused should the tree then fail.

 

It's generally better not to give advice on matters you don't understand. 

 

Have YOU tried reading the rest of it instead of just a caption to a photograph???

 

john..

Edited January 24 by john87

[AHPP]