Council avoiding responsibility for Subsidence caused by their tree - please help

willy614

Firstly, i have spent quite a while looking across several pages of existing threads for this information - i haven't just been lazy and posted a new one, whilst some existing ones were similar (and helpful) none addressed this point.

A small extenstion to the front of my house has been affected by subsidence caused by some very large trees on council land (luckily the main house isn't affected). They are about 6m away and whilst they were large when we moved in 3yrs ago, the surveys showed no problems and its only the last 10-12 months we have had the problems.

My insurer commissioned specialist surveys and monitoring and confirmed (indepedantly) their trees are at fault and will need removing, which so far the council have agreed to do 'without predjudice' - i.e. not admitting anything. Although they agreed to do this many weeks ago, they still haven't.


What worries me is that my insurers have warned me they don't expect to get 100% recovery from them and 70% is more likely - in the latter case i may be last in line for recompensing of my £1100 excess, i.e. get nothing, or the insurer may pay pro-rata - i.e. if they get 70% they will give me 70% of my excess back. I can see theh insurer accepting less than 100% to get something back and save a costly and lengthy argument but is that decision out of my control as i would rather fight it - i have plenty of evidence (apart from the independant tree reports, i have taken photos and video etc periodically to show the drains and path etc around have also been affected)

I am finding this whole situation very unfair as through no fault of my own i will be out of pocket. The trees are in a busy area so its not as if we're in some quiet cul-de-sac and forgotten about and surely they have a duty of care and routine maintenance to prevent this?


As it stands, they are fighting and not accepting liability and if they do i am worried i won't get my excess back - even if i do, will i be able to claim (through the small claims court if needed and i am quite prepared to do so) for compensation for not being able to use our front door for what will be about a 2yr period, as well as the increased insurance cost and reduced house value - all as a result of their negligence?


I feel like a small individual facing a large local authority with large legal budgets etc easily able to quash me and theres nothing i can do - i will ask my councillor and MP for help but don't hold out much hope.

Any advice would be very much appreciated

Colincbayley

Leave it to your insurers to sort out. Let them settle the claim and then deal with the council.
If they get a 70% recovery from the council, then submit your claim to the council for 70% of your excess.

willy614

Thanks Colin but i really don't think its fair that i be out of pocket by several hundred pounds for something thats not my fault - and thats not taking into account the other associated costs i mention above. Hopefully someone out there will have some experience in this - either from the council/insurers POV or have had it themself. I am worried though

Colincbayley

willy614 wrote: »

Thanks Colin but i really don't think its fair that i be out of pocket by several hundred pounds for something thats not my fault - and thats not taking into account the other associated costs i mention above. Hopefully someone out there will have some experience in this - either from the council/insurers POV or have had it themself. I am worried though

I understand where you are coming from, and I have plenty of experience in these situations ( Ex Senior Insurance Industry Manager for 16 years )

The purpose of your Insurance is to put you back in the same position you were before the loss occurred ( in your case subject to excess )
I can not see how, or indeed why, you would want to take on the council when you have already paid your premiums to your Insurers who will handle this matter for you.

With all due respect, you are unlikley to do a better job than your Insurers in settling the matter, and in fact you could prejudice their position if you take the matter on yourself.

My first post still applies in your situation. Let your Insurers deal with the matter, then reclaim your excess or % of it, afterwards.

For other detailed view, pehaps try reposting on the Insurance forum.

Good luck

muskoka

I agreed with ColinBayley entirely. You paid your insurance to have cover - they are repairing the damage & taking on the Council on your behalf - saving you a ton of grief.

I know its not fair that you should be out of pocket for something that is not your fault, but in simplistic terms look at it like this:-

If your car gets hit & your insurance company is unable to get the costs back (whether it be down to an uninsured driver, or vandalism), then your insurance covers for this. Ok, your premium goes up the following year or so, but thats what Insurance is for. To cover you for the unexpected..... I'd definitely leave it to your Insurance Company and don't interfere at this stage. Honestly, I feel you could do more harm than good.

Wait until the claim is all settled via your Insurance Company and then re-assess the situation if you must.

willy614

Colincbayley wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from, and I have plenty of experience in these situations ( Ex Senior Insurance Industry Manager for 16 years )

The purpose of your Insurance is to put you back in the same position you were before the loss occurred ( in your case subject to excess )
I can not see how, or indeed why, you would want to take on the council when you have already paid your premiums to your Insurers who will handle this matter for you.

With all due respect, you are unlikley to do a better job than your Insurers in settling the matter, and in fact you could prejudice their position if you take the matter on yourself.

My first post still applies in your situation. Let your Insurers deal with the matter, then reclaim your excess or % of it, afterwards.

For other detailed view, pehaps try reposting on the Insurance forum.

Good luck

Sorry Colin, i think i was talking at cross purposes. You are indeed right i wouldn't be anywhere near as good at taking on the council myself and will leave it to them - i am also aware about predujicing their claim (and them mine) and was talking about claiming from the council after and in addition to anything i get from them through my insurance

ILW

Why is it the councils fault?

g_attrill

ILW wrote: »

Why is it the councils fault?

Presumably it is their trees. I think the law is pretty settled on how damage is dealt with. The other 30% is probably because the property owner should have either cut off the roots growing into their property or told the council that the trees were so large they were causing damage, although the council should have an inspection and maintenance routine.

martindow

Devil's advocate here! Could it not be argued that by extending the house towards the tree the OP bears some responsibility? We are all aware that trees close to buildings can cause problems.

lincroft1710

A friend of mine was in a similar situation, but this was a small block of flats and very visible signs of subsidence. I think it took about 3 years for council to admit responsibility and remove trees and my friend and other flat owners had reams of correspondence flowing between them, council, insurers and surveyors.

You are very fortunate that your insurers are dealing with this.

willy614

martindow wrote: »

Devil's advocate here! Could it not be argued that by extending the house towards the tree the OP bears some responsibility? We are all aware that trees close to buildings can cause problems.

Just to clarify, yet it is Council trees and the extension was built and in place well before we bought it. It is highly likely that it is an ex-council house and as all of them around here are done (and more modern than the original build but well established) they could have been done either prior to selling on or as part of updating possibly?