Neighbours Tree Caused £25k Damage

[jcosh]

Hopefully this is the best place to post this for some advice?


Back in July 2016 I returned home to find a very sizeable branch from my neighbours oak tree had broken off and fallen into our garden causing damage to our victorian greenhouse and the also our conifer trees that form part our boundary with their garden.

This branch was a significant size and weighted several tons and was part of a 150 year old oak tree. It came down crashing through our very mature conifers and partly landed on our green house. See this video of the last piece of it coming down under the control of the tree surgeons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBaDIT7oT9Q

I immediately informed the neighbours and they very quickly arranged for some tree surgeons to be in attendance to sort out the mess. This surprised me as we have had on going issues with them over the last several years about fence boundaries etc, which I have always ended up maintaining and paying for. In fact some recent fence work was completed directly under the tree days before it fell.

I have lived in our house for 20 years and they have also lived in theirs for all of this time and more. I have asked them on several occasions to maintain the tree as it is large and smaller branches often fall into our garden causing lesser damage. In 2009 I was getting more concerned over one branch in particular (the one that eventually came down last year) that I asked the council to inspect the tree and advice accordingly. They produced a report which I have given to our neighbours stating that the tree was in need of work and that 'the' branch presented a risk as it overhangs our greenhouse.

Since the brach came down in July last year I have been involved in an insurance claim whereby it turns out I have to claim on my own insurance for the damage which would then be counter claimed by my insurance company against their insurers. This surprised me but I was told this is the normal process. So I claimed on my insurance as advised. About £10k for the greenhouse and about £14k to replace the conifers. Eventually my insurance paid out for the greenhouse but told be that my policy doesn't cover the conifers trees, despite them telling me it would do in the earlier stages of the claim process.

So, we have received payment for the greenhouse and now my insurance company are trying to claim liability from their insurance company for the conifer tree work. They started by contacting their buildings insurance but they have sad they are not liable and we should contact they contents insurers. This is now proving difficult as the neighbours now won't provide my insurance company's legal department with the details of their contents insurers, despite previously providing the details for their building insurance company.

Hopefully that's all all clear?

What advice, if any, is there for how best to manage this? I'm beginning to conclude that it's unlikely that I'm going to receive any payment from their insurance company and this has already cost me money in terms of increased insurance premium and I am currently unable to go to another insurance company for a cheaper policy as I still have a unsettled claim on the go.

Is there a process for making a claim directly against my neighbours of the conifers trees? Or would this get very expensive in terms of legal fees etc?

Thanks for any advice you can offer.

[drdel]

Isn't the limit for a 'Small Claims' £15k - so minimum fees and, I believe, an online process. Just focus on the tree loss.

[surveyor]

It get's messy...

I'm guessing that your insurance company is a little reluctant to take action as unless there is specific negligence your neighbour is not legally liable.

The fact that you have previously warned them about the state of the tree is a fly in the ointment, and why they are continuing to chase. I guess their big issue is as to whether they are to take the next steps of legal action.

You still have your loss of the tree's. I would think that would mean you could sue - but you have the same risks of legal costs etc.

It's all a bit muddy.

Legal advice time I think..

[trickywoo]

jcosh said:

About £10k for the greenhouse and about £14k to replace the conifers. Eventually my insurance paid out for the greenhouse but told be that my policy doesn't cover the conifers trees

I'm struggling to see how the conifers can possibly cost £14K. Could be that they think the claim in this respect is a mickey take. Pleased you got the greenhouse paid out and you definately did the right thing in having the state of the neighbours tree documented as if you can't prove it was in a dangerous state you might not have been paid at all.

[huytonman]

Its not unusual for trees,shrubs etc not to be covered by home insurance so that aspect makes sense to me regarding your own insurer. As for the damage, although you dont want to spend money on legal advice, given the sums involved I strongly suggest that you do just that, yes it may cost you a few hundred quid but ultimately you should be aiming to be no worse off financially than you were before this event occured and to reach that stage you may have to go to court to make a civil claim against your neighbour. Some people may consider this to be an "act of god" and therefore just bad luck but as you mentioned prior notification of the tree condition you are probably more than OK to ignore this defence. Good luck and that is a monster of a tree, just happy for you that nobody was injured or even worse when the branch came down.

[jcosh]

drdel said:

Isn't the limit for a 'Small Claims' £15k - so minimum fees and, I believe, an online process. Just focus on the tree loss.

I don't know about that. But that's about the level of the outstanding claim. i.e. the conifers as the greenhouse has already been paid.

[jcosh]

trickywoo said:

I'm struggling to see how the conifers can possibly cost £14K. Could be that they think the claim in this respect is a mickey take. Pleased you got the greenhouse paid out and you definately did the right thing in having the state of the neighbours tree documented as if you can't prove it was in a dangerous state you might not have been paid at all.

I was surprised at the cost of the conifers also, but two secret companies have quoted almost the fees of the work. Four mature, damaged trees to be removed and stumps ground out and removed. The ground prepped and new trees bought in from Italy (that's the only place to get anything close to the size apparently) with in irrigation system etc. Plus a bit of tree surgery etc, it all starts to add up.

[akirk]

The law can be confusing...
- landowners can hold liability for damage caused by trees on their property
- but not if they carry out appropriate regular inspections and the tree is not believed to be a hazard...

However, the council report you mention would suggest that they are unable to rely on that defence as there is evidence that they knew of the potential for problems and by doing nothing can be shown to be negligent... I would suspect that is enough to sink them at a trial, so would suggest a simple initial lawyers letter referencing that report and their liabilities, and then follow up with small claims

[Green1man]

I can't see how this is a contents insurance claim, must be buildings or nothing which should include 3rd party liability of structures/trees on their land. If they are liable for the greenhouse then by definition they are liable for the conifers. Have you not got legal protection/cover? If so they should be pursuing the neighbours for full,payment, given your previous correspondence I suspect they have little grounds for defence.

[SiH]

The wording of the report will be important as it should provide some sort of statement regarding the health of the tree. An overhanging branch on a healthy tree isn't necessarily something that would need to be remedied, particularly in a healthy established tree. If, on the other hand, there was a suggestion that the tree was not in good health and that some sort of rot was present then a lack of action would be potentially negligent.
I suspect you might have a battle on your hands, if I were your neighbour I'd suggest that if you had an issue with an overhanging branch then you were perfectly at liberty to take your own action as is your right.

[akirk]

The OP's first post suggests that the report highlighted that branch specifically - if so, it could be very difficult for the neighbour to defend against an accusation of negligence - there is plenty of legislation and case law to support the need for the landowner to maintain their trees or hold liability when it goes wrong - esp. if it can be shown that they knew it was likely...

The OP could have had it removed if overhanging - however, at his expense and his ability to do that doesn't negate the neighbour's liability / negligence - pretty sure it is not a defence for negligence to say that someone else could have compensated for the negligence.

[anonymous-user]

Your insurance company don't need the details of the your neighbour's insurance.
they can pursue them directly and then their insurer can step in if required.


Does the report suggest neglect or not?

[Joe5y]

jcosh said:

trickywoo said:

I'm struggling to see how the conifers can possibly cost £14K. Could be that they think the claim in this respect is a mickey take. Pleased you got the greenhouse paid out and you definately did the right thing in having the state of the neighbours tree documented as if you can't prove it was in a dangerous state you might not have been paid at all.

I was surprised at the cost of the conifers also, but two secret companies have quoted almost the fees of the work. Four mature, damaged trees to be removed and stumps ground out and removed. The ground prepped and new trees bought in from Italy (that's the only place to get anything close to the size apparently) with in irrigation system etc. Plus a bit of tree surgery etc, it all starts to add up.

How tall are / were the conifers?

[Butter Face]

Joe5y said:

jcosh said:

trickywoo said:

I'm struggling to see how the conifers can possibly cost £14K. Could be that they think the claim in this respect is a mickey take. Pleased you got the greenhouse paid out and you definately did the right thing in having the state of the neighbours tree documented as if you can't prove it was in a dangerous state you might not have been paid at all.

I was surprised at the cost of the conifers also, but two secret companies have quoted almost the fees of the work. Four mature, damaged trees to be removed and stumps ground out and removed. The ground prepped and new trees bought in from Italy (that's the only place to get anything close to the size apparently) with in irrigation system etc. Plus a bit of tree surgery etc, it all starts to add up.

How tall are / were the conifers?

And how damaged? Won't they, you know, grow back?

[dacouch]

You can launch your own claim against the neighboors for the excess you paid, this will almost certainly force them to involve their home Insurers (If they have any)

[s3fella]

Slightly off topic ref insurance / claim, but assuming this oak tree overhung your garden / greenhouse, presumably you'd have been within your rights to tend to it up to the boundary. Is there a reason you didn't? I'm not saying the neighbours should not have, but if you were concerned in 2009 about it, why not just take the offending branches back to the boundary at the time or since?

[Joe5y]

When you had the tree inspected did you clarify if the tree had a specific TPO and what rights you had re the overhang inline with your concerns?

[anonymous-user]

Joe5y said:

When you had the tree inspected did you clarify if the tree had a specific TPO and what rights you had re the overhang inline with your concerns?

And why not get the matter seen to then?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Green1man said:

I can't see how this is a contents insurance claim,

It would be a claim on your neighbours contents insurance, as it's contents cover and not buildings cover that gives third party liability cover.

The main question is this....are your insurance co going to take legal action against your neighbours for recovery of their outlay on your greenhouse claim. If the answer is yes, ask them if they will include your claim for your loss of the conifers in with their claim. They should be happy to do that.

If they are not going to take legal action, it's probably because they don't think they'll win, in which case you should probably follow suit and not pursue your claim against them.

[herewego]

It seems extraordinary to claim anything, nevermind tens of thousands, for damage to a few trees. Surely trees are self repairing, they will regrow.