Ownership of tree

[Ashes_Firewood]

Hi.

 

We're looking at buying a house that could potentially come with the ownership of a footpath. Near to the end of the area of footpath that we would own where it runs alongside a kids playground is a tree. It looks to be partly in the path and partly in the wall. Unsure if it's growing out the ground on the other side of the wall, need to check.

 

The Tarmac footpath and kids playground are owned by others (presumably council but need to check).

 

Does anyone know of anything we need to be aware of relating to this tree if it turns out we would own it? It's growing through the wall in to the land next door. I'm thinking in terms of maintenance and liability in the event it pushed the wall over and/or fell on someone. Attached a couple of pictures below.

 

Basically the crappy wet path this side of the wall, gate and fence would be ours.

 

Thanks.

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Try and get a definitive confirmation of the boundary line (not as easy at it should be), then you'll be able to ascertain what to consider next.

[Gary Prentice]

You can get a plan from land registry on line for a few pounds, as a starting point.

[ReubenHayes]

Hi there,

 

It looks like the tree is a self set that has been allowed to grow naturally on the fence line. As no one has really bothered it, it has continued to grow in to a tree. I would hazard a guess that who ever owns the tree wont mind it being missed. If its yours then you have a duty of care to people using the path. If its a 3rd party tree, then it is trespassing on your land.

 

I would ask two questions:

 

1) Is the tree the reason for buying the land?

2) Is it currently or likely to cause damage to either the footpath or play ground?

 

If the tree is not of good quality and could be removed (Check first TPO's CA etc), I would get your solicitor to confirm in writing that the seller will arrange the removal of the tree before exchange of contracts. This helps to lower the burden of costs on to you after the sale. It also means that the playground owners or people using the path will find it a lot harder claim for damage from the tree (as it was removed before you purchased the property, so you would not be at fault). It also puts the burden back on the seller to arrange it all so you don't have to worry about who owns it, what maintenance to do etc.

[Ashes_Firewood]

The tree is not something we particularly want or need. It just happens that it could be part of the land we owned if we buy the house. I've asked for some confirmation as to exactly what we would own.

 

I would have to look at it again as when I was there taking photos last time I was just taking general photos for reference. It just randomly came in to my head that there was a tree down there and got me thinking of any potential headaches it might cause.

 

Thanks for the advice so far

[10 Bears]

If its a 3rd party tree, then it is trespassing on your land.

 

Sorry Ruben, but this bit is not quite right. A tree cannot 'trespass' in the sense that it moves from one place and occupies another without permission.

 

The situation as described above, and assuming boundaries are where the OP says, would mean that there is a proportional ownership of the tree ie part between the OP, and part between the playground owners. Obviously I would say more ownership is on the playground side.

 

This is because in terms of law, the owner of the ground around the base of the tree, owns what is growing in it. So, if the OP owns the soil on this side of the wall, then they own that proportion of the tree as well - and everything vertically above and below ground from the boundary.

 

Yes, it can get more murky in the muddied legal waters, should one side want to remove the tree and the other doesn't etc., but we will leave that for further discussion another time.

 

Ultimately, define the boundary and you will define ownership, but the tree cannot trespass on the owners land...

[10 Bears]

I knew I had posted something along these lines before, so this is from an earlier thread I partook in:

 

"Land is of course, divided into neighbouring parcels in separate ownership. This will normally be by vertical division; and since land extends to include the air above the surface and the ground below it, as well as the surface of the land itself, this means that the soil containing the roots of the tree, or the above ground portion of the tree may be in two or more completely separate ownerships".

 

(Mynors, 2.1.4 Trees on or Near Boundaries, P.27).

 

Here is the link to the full thread with some excellent discussion and commentary by all involved. If you have questions about trees on boundaries, then this would be an excellent read for you:

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/74382-oak-tree-boundary-therefore-2-owners.html