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

[Joe Newton]

2 hours ago, john87 said:

 

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

 

john..

What do you do for a job, John?

[Stubby]

This is a repeat argument between john87 and others . Its been done before . Its almost identical , spooky 🙂

[daltontrees]

15 hours ago, goblinlogail said:

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?

The AA document is merely paraphrasing Mynors in 'The law of trees, forests and hedgerows'. It's far from being as simple as either (a) cut back to the boundary with impunity or (b) don't cut back it if it will damage the encroaching tree. Case law says the first, popular opinion (if unsubstantiated and misconcieved) says the latter. Both are trotted out regularly, usually by people takign sides in a dispute.