Problem tree/bush on neighbours property

slummymummyof3

Vicarious liability! Do you have legal cover on any of your insurance policies?

redlady_1

I do indeed have legal cover. Both offending items are about a foot away from my property. I am going to write to him over the weekend explaining that the roots have already caused a problem with the drains (ins co were involved there) and the situation with not being able to complete the renovations. I think he just doesnt want to pay to have them taken out. Plus, I dont think the letting agents actually explained properly to him what the situation was. I know he has photographs of the items but only from outside. He is not seeing what is happening in my cellar!

I have no problem with the tenants and told them what I was going to be doing anyway.

redlady_1

I guess B & T that I would be able to point out that as the plant roots caused the drain damage that he would have been liable for this, however, I have paid so as a gesture of goodwill it would be nice if he would remove the offending articles to stop it happening again - as next time I will claim on his ins!

oldone_2

If you believe the owner doesn't want to pay to have the trees removed, offer to pay for the removal yourself. If he still refuses, this will strengthen any subsequent legal claim you make against him.

tbs624

redlady_1 wrote: »

I guess B & T that I would be able to point out that as the plant roots caused the drain damage that he would have been liable for this, however, I have paid so as a gesture of goodwill it would be nice if he would remove the offending articles to stop it happening again - as next time I will claim on his ins!

From the links I gave in post 14:

Damage by tree roots—Law Lords ruling

Encroaching roots from a neighbouring property may cause damage to foundations, drains, or lightly loaded structures such as walls, drives and garages. However, if roots cause damage to built structures, an action for an injunction and damages against the owner or occupier will depend on the extent to which damage was foreseeable.

A high profile ruling by the House of Lords in 2001 against Westminster City Council made the situation clear in respect of tree damage from roots. The owners of a building took action against Westminster City Council where a single plane tree owned by the Council had damaged the foundations. Westminster Council had refused to remove the tree and the claimant spent over £570,000 carrying out underpinning works which they then sought to claim from the council. The council lost its appeal to the House of Lords and the claimant recovered the cost of the repairs.

The Lords ruled that if it is clear that if there is a continuing nuisance, which a defendant knows about or ought to know about, the claimant is entitled to recover the reasonable costs of eliminating the nuisance if he has given notice of the problem to the defendant and a reasonable opportunity to deal with it.

The unanimous opinion of the Law Lords summarises the major English case law relating to damage to property, particularly foundations, caused by tree roots belonging to trees on a neighbouring property.

The case name is in the other link in post 14, and it's worth quoting it if there is a lack of action from your neighbour. Any new letter should state previous attempts to raise issue via LA and your understanding of the return message:)