TreeLayman

They’re not my trees - they are about 5m away in the neighbour’s garden. The insurance company has thus far only said what they won’t do. I’m waiting to hear what they will do. Amazed it’s already over two years since claim and still have an unusable garage.

Thanks for the response. I’d be concerned about applying for TPO removal if the significantly more qualified insurance company doesn’t want to do it. But it’s good to know it’s an option. I’m actually waiting to hear what they plan on doing with the claim now. I was surprised to get an email on a Sunday afternoon saying they’d not proceed with application to remove. It was all such a slow process, but now with the covid situation it’s even slower. I guess my concern is - are they just taking the easy route to get the claim closed, and then they can bump up premiums to try and be rid of me.

EDIT - The location in question is England. We've had a subsidence claim going for just over two years, on a detached garage - the entire back end has moved around 5 centimetres. About a year after the initial claim, we were given two separate reports. One showed the soil samples determining the foundation depth, and tree root species found. This showed presence of yew and sycamore tree roots. The other was a report from an arboriculturist on nearby vegetation, and stated that two trees (a sycamore and a yew) were 'the principal cause' of the subsidence, and advised their removal. Both have a TPO. They are in no other way a nuisance to me, and do not block light or any of the other common specious complaints I've read in the forum. Now after a year of monitoring, the insurance company is backtracking and saying they will not pursue removal of the TPO - even though the latest readings show the level of the garage lowered during the hot and dry weather earlier in the year. When I ask them about the report they just say it shouldn't have been sent to me - but don't acknowledge it otherwise. I'm now very concerned this leaves all sorts of problems for the future, including getting insurance in future (either at all, or at high cost), issues when we come to sell, and issues with planning permission. I also feel they've wasted two years not paying to fix the garage if they never really intended to pursue removal of the trees. Would be pleased for any advice here - happy to hire a solicitor if necessary, but don't want to do that if there's no real prospect of resolving this. I would be happy for the two trees to stay - but I'm not sure what I can say to a buyer in the future "Oh yes that tree was 'the principle cause' of subsidence according to an arboriculturist, but we left it there". Or to an alternative buildings insurer? What if, in their opinion, the tree should be removed? They're simply not going to give me insurance. Then I have to answer 'yes' for evermore to the question 'have you ever been refused insurance?'. I'm also concerned if I do launch any complaint or action against the insurer or the subsidence claims company they use, that might also have a negative effect on future quotes or claims. Frankly I wish I'd just paid to have the garage fixed - but now feel stuck between insurance and TPOs. I'm asking in this forum as it seems to be frequented by both tree professionals an LA officers - and I guess the former advise both LAs and insurance companies.