Tree root problem.
Discussion
I'm hoping someone can advise me where I stand legally on a tree root problem and a neighbour.
In my back garden is a 30ft Silver Birch situated about 24 inches from my side fence. My neighbour pulled me the other day and complained that the roots are damaging their conservatory floor, pushing it up and making it uneven inside. They have also said the drains are beginning to be affected.
I want to be neighbourly and previously when he has asked me to trim the branches on his side I have either done it myself of paid to have it done professionally, this has been done three times in the last 5 years.
He is now making noises that he wants the tree completely removing and although he hasn't said it yet I am expecting a claim for a new floor in his conservatory.
Now my beef is that his conservatory was only built 5 years ago by some cowboys to within 24 inches of my fence. The house and garden were created 30 years ago and this is when the tree was planted. The developer of the estate situated the tree correctly and is a good 20-30ft away from my property and his before his conservatory was built. The conservatory was placed on the roots rather than the roots finding their way under his conservation.
I'm keeping things calm for now but where do I stand refusing his claim or refusing to remover the tree completely? I'm happy to trim it back again but would rather not remove the whole thing at my expense.
In my back garden is a 30ft Silver Birch situated about 24 inches from my side fence. My neighbour pulled me the other day and complained that the roots are damaging their conservatory floor, pushing it up and making it uneven inside. They have also said the drains are beginning to be affected.
I want to be neighbourly and previously when he has asked me to trim the branches on his side I have either done it myself of paid to have it done professionally, this has been done three times in the last 5 years.
He is now making noises that he wants the tree completely removing and although he hasn't said it yet I am expecting a claim for a new floor in his conservatory.
Now my beef is that his conservatory was only built 5 years ago by some cowboys to within 24 inches of my fence. The house and garden were created 30 years ago and this is when the tree was planted. The developer of the estate situated the tree correctly and is a good 20-30ft away from my property and his before his conservatory was built. The conservatory was placed on the roots rather than the roots finding their way under his conservation.
I'm keeping things calm for now but where do I stand refusing his claim or refusing to remover the tree completely? I'm happy to trim it back again but would rather not remove the whole thing at my expense.
I see your point that if your neighbour was stupid enough to build his conservatory close to your tree then it's his problem. However, it's not my area of expertise. The relevant law is I think the law of nuisance.
I'd first check your household and buildings insurance to see if it covers damage caused by your tree and whether it provides cover for legal expenses.
I'd first check your household and buildings insurance to see if it covers damage caused by your tree and whether it provides cover for legal expenses.
I've made a number of assumptions; but according to the NHBC foundation depth App the footings should have been installed at 1.3 - 1.5m.
If this hasnt been followed then i would suggest your neighbour takes the issue up with the builders as I would tell them politely that the tree stays.
If this hasnt been followed then i would suggest your neighbour takes the issue up with the builders as I would tell them politely that the tree stays.
Pegscratch said:
"Your" tree is encroaching "his" land. Whilst I have sympathy, unless it is protected the tree does not get squatters rights. It is unlikely to end the way you desire, and you'll end up with a soured relationship in the process...
That argument would have stood up well when the conservatory was being built - i.e. sorry neighbour we need to chop through the roots of your tree because they are encroaching into the area of our new foundations. If however they just did a half arsed job and concreted over the existing roots I can't see that it is the OP's problem. When it comes to restoration of any damage caused by the OPs tree roots then surely that is a question for the neighbour's home insurance? Let's hope they declared any trees within 5m (or whatever the distance is) of their property....
They're really messy though. To save grief (and work/money) having to clear up/maintain it personally I'd just get the chainsaw out and cut it down. Grind it flat and poison the roots, job done.
We have a virtually maintenance free garden though paved with no trees/bushes/annuals/grass ect so only m. h.o..
We have a virtually maintenance free garden though paved with no trees/bushes/annuals/grass ect so only m. h.o..
chrisch77 said:
That argument would have stood up well when the conservatory was being built - i.e. sorry neighbour we need to chop through the roots of your tree because they are encroaching into the area of our new foundations. If however they just did a half arsed job and concreted over the existing roots I can't see that it is the OP's problem.
Unfortunately for both the identification in the early stages, and remedying the issue now, you're pretty much offing the tree regardless. Whilst that approach might absolve you of responsibility for the conservatory (although that would be debatable) I suspect the tree is going.A1VDY said:
They're really messy though. To save grief (and work/money) having to clear up/maintain it personally I'd just get the chainsaw out and cut it down. Grind it flat and poison the roots, job done.
We have a virtually maintenance free garden though paved with no trees/bushes/annuals/grass ect so only m. h.o..
I work for a developer and find this sad We have a virtually maintenance free garden though paved with no trees/bushes/annuals/grass ect so only m. h.o..
Most conservatories are exempt from building control regulations. Referring to bc requirements for foundations is likely to be futile.
Get some expert advice, whether you're insured or not, before you embark on a dispute with your neighbour that might devalue your house and prove costly if/when you lose.
Get some expert advice, whether you're insured or not, before you embark on a dispute with your neighbour that might devalue your house and prove costly if/when you lose.
You're insurer won't help other than if you have Legal assistance included and even then they were worse than useless for me. They actually advised me in a very similar situation to ignore the neighbour and await a claim.
I decided to get proper advice and upon that advice I acted.
The difference you have is, my neighbour never mentioned the tree prior to their claim. There was a significant amount involved and after consideration I had 3 trees cut down, my position was that any damage was not foreseeable and I had abated the nuisance. Before anyone thinks I'm not reasonable, their trees at the front have absolutely destroyed my drive way and I ignored it as I couldn't be doing with aggro at the time. They cut them down as part of the agreement.
If it me, I'd cut the tree down if no Tpo, kill the roots and tell the neighbour, it wasn't foreseeable but now it's fixed and good bye.
They will maybe have a whine but I found most people wince at the possible bad outcomes of these things and don't let your ego get in the way, my wife was all up for a fight until in conference call with the solicitor he gave her the probable legal costs for us and for our neighbour.
This is clearly my experience and not a legal position but luckily I have a good practical solicitor who took the real world view.
I decided to get proper advice and upon that advice I acted.
The difference you have is, my neighbour never mentioned the tree prior to their claim. There was a significant amount involved and after consideration I had 3 trees cut down, my position was that any damage was not foreseeable and I had abated the nuisance. Before anyone thinks I'm not reasonable, their trees at the front have absolutely destroyed my drive way and I ignored it as I couldn't be doing with aggro at the time. They cut them down as part of the agreement.
If it me, I'd cut the tree down if no Tpo, kill the roots and tell the neighbour, it wasn't foreseeable but now it's fixed and good bye.
They will maybe have a whine but I found most people wince at the possible bad outcomes of these things and don't let your ego get in the way, my wife was all up for a fight until in conference call with the solicitor he gave her the probable legal costs for us and for our neighbour.
This is clearly my experience and not a legal position but luckily I have a good practical solicitor who took the real world view.
Again, thank you for the advice.
I don't really have a problem with the tree going, I'd rather it wasn't but it's not going to fix itself. I guess the conservatory is staying so it looks like the only option as the tree just going to get bigger. I'll have to take that on the chin.
What I really want to avoid is any liability for his drains or conservatory floor. I don't want to start any fix this and then finding other faults further down the line.
Does anyone know a ballpark figure for getting rid of the tree?
I don't really have a problem with the tree going, I'd rather it wasn't but it's not going to fix itself. I guess the conservatory is staying so it looks like the only option as the tree just going to get bigger. I'll have to take that on the chin.
What I really want to avoid is any liability for his drains or conservatory floor. I don't want to start any fix this and then finding other faults further down the line.
Does anyone know a ballpark figure for getting rid of the tree?
Edited by Steve Benson on Sunday 24th May 11:35
I'm fairly sure on this, he has to make a claim on his building insurance and they take it from there. They then reclaim any expenses from your insurance.
Personally, I wouldn't have the tree tree felled as it could be an admission of liability and insurer's love that on one side but don't like it on the other.
Personally, I wouldn't have the tree tree felled as it could be an admission of liability and insurer's love that on one side but don't like it on the other.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff