The ins coy could be right. They have clauses excluding "gradual" causes .
If the tree falls on your house then your ins coy will pay, but if it falls
on or damages the neighbour's then their ins coy will pay. I suspect yr
neighbour did not tell his ins coy about the potential problem when he first
took out the policy...
This happened to neighbours of mine who both have big oak trees close to
their newish houses. They are finding it difficult to get ins cover at all
now. The LA slapped TPOs on the trees but has allowed some crown trimming.
Everyone involved believes the trees are eventually doomed but the cost of
removal will be high. These houses were built with substantial foundations
And that, in a nutshell, says it all.
(i) the tree was there before he erected the foundatins of hs extension.
(ii) It is therefore his problem alone to make sure that the foundations
were suitable for local conditions. He could resonably excpect that teh
tree would not be cut down, indeed might well grow. Its not on his
property, and if he has built too close to it, it is his problem and his
insurers to underpin his foundations.
Having built to withing 3 meters of substantial trees, and having had to
take execcssive precausitions by way of foundation deopth only two years
ago, I can assure you that if the founations had been properly dug, he
would not now have a problem. If you go deep enough you cut the roots,
and there is no more subsidence. Indeed, he may even get heave instead
as the dead tree roots no longer drain the soil under his floor.
It should have been up too teh BCo to ensure adequate foundations. If
anyone is to blame, it is his architect, builder and the BCO.
That is teh legal position I think.
The tree is in the corner of my property so has
A position with which I wholeheartedly agree by the way. They made ME do
2.5 meters deep foundations, lay compressible sheets alongside it and
put a suspended concrete floor in. After considerable bore testing to
see how deep the roots went, and what the subsoil was.
It sonds like pressure has been applied at council level.
Firstly, its entirely probable that removal of the tree will indeed make
matters as bad, if not worse. Repalcing a net suck with increased water
content will shift shallow foundations in the reverse direction.
Secondly, I do not see that it is your probelem to pay for this. Its his
Thirdly, the correct way to stabilise is not to remove the tree, but
curtail grwoth by pollarding - that way its root system will stabilise.
Get some expert legal advice, and start writing legal letters.
I think you may find a rather old law which controls the felling of Oak. The
reason for the law is that we need the oak for the battle ships.
Rather like whey we don't eat horse meat in England.
If you want the keep the tree (I would) then the neighbours can get stuffed. If
they want it removed, at the very least, they should pay for it, and
underwrite any damage that the extra water may do to your house, and clear up
the mess, and compensate you for the loss of such a bueatifl object.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:57:30 -0000, "David L"
I think it is obvious that you need expert advice, but who from?
The trouble with legal advice is that lawyers tend to adopt an
aggressive and confrontational approach which gives you your
full legal rights and an unfortunate residue of bad feeling,
and huge fees.
I would venture to suggest that you ask a firm of tree surgeons:
can you save your neighbour's house without killing the tree?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.