Tree or not to tree - subsidence advice please ...

[Joedels]

Hi, I am in the middle of a 4 year + subsidence Insurance claim involving medium plasticity clay  soil and 2 x 300-350 year old TPO oak trees 13 metres from tge front of the property and  15 metres from the back of my property. 

* data monitoring started 4 years ago. 

Medium clay soil found after trial pits dug. Oak roots identified under foundations but no DNA analysis  done to ascertain which or both oak roots are under property. 

* only 1 oak tree crown reduced 3 years ago. Movement continued  after pruning 

* tree is within my property but near boundary with public highway and pedestrian and car traffic to schools further down the road. 

* Insurer initially offered £7,500 for re-decoration. No recognition of subsidence issue for first year of the Claim

* monitoring has stopped and started and been done at varying intervals over 4 years eg 2 monthly, 6 monthly, 8 monthly. 

* Insurer’s arborist 2023 said if tree couldn’t be removed then underpinning was the only  solution. Also RBT ‘unreliable’ and ‘unsafe’ 

* after Council refused removal of tree,  RBT proposed by Insurer. When challenged, Insurer’s arborist changed opinion from underpinning to RBT although nothing had changed from his opinion 9 months earlier when tree removal application was ongoing. 

* Insurer’s arborist is claiming credentials from a Arboricultual Organisation that had not been renewed as membership had not paid for. 

* independent structural engineer’s Report advised underpinning

* independent arborist advised against RBT due to: tree safety issues (anchor root damage and safety to public from tree damage), lack of acknowledgment of potential 2nd oak tree influence on subsidence, strong likelihood tree roots of 100-150 of age were under property when it was built. 

Insurer refusing underpinning and only offering RBT. 

Any advice woukd be appreciated. 

Thank you 

 

 

 

 

[GarethM]

Well @Joedels, to assume makes what ?.

 

In all seriousness tho, four years of advice has resulted in pretty much sweet fa, regardless of how you wish me to phrase, paraphrase, discuss or skirt around the subject in airy fairy ballet terms.

 

As unless there are any other factors contributing to the damage, those are you two options, a third option would be to live with it as all you'll be doing is delaying the inevitable as the roots will keep growing and the cracks will keep needing filler.

 

A root barrier will probably kill the tree or more likely encourage it to regrow and or ruin the barrier and the house either falling on it or growing under it again.

[Mark Bolam]

On 23/04/2024 at 14:28, Joedels said:

Thanks for taking time to reply. The house is 125 years old so the tree was at least a semi-mature oak when the house was built ie the tree was 175-225 years old when the foundations were laid. There is an oak of the same age to the rear of the property and at the same distance which the Insurers have completely ignored.

The roots of both trees must have been well established beneath the house when the property was erected.

The independent structural engineer advised underpinning as did an independent arboriculturist. The Insurers insist a root barrier is the cure and will not budge despite lots of issues such as the safety of the tree if anchor roots are cut. The front garden tree is on my property but only 2’ from a boundary hedge with a pavement and road used by traffic to and from a large Primary and Secondary school further along the road. 

Many further advice or comments woukd be very valued. 

 

So the insurers want to ignore the expert advice and go for a much cheaper solution?

What a surprise.

 

The house needs underpinning.

 

You need to push for that or start building a case against the insurers.

[Thesnarlingbadger]

Agree with Mark. 
 

 If the insurance company is refusing to go with professional advice presented to them then a court case may be in the future.

 

 I would keep note of advice, timelines and anything else. As insurance companies will always try and worm out of things.

 

 If root barriers are not advised on grounds it could have an adverse effect on the trees health/stability then they should be listening tho this advise. If they are not then they could be liable if there is a future issue.