Subsidence, council tree causing. Council saying there's no problem

Mcfarkus

HiMy wife and I purchased a house in September with historical subsidence. There had been two claims for subsidence dating back from 2002. The vendors provided us with all their insurance claim certificates. On both occasions the council owned tree on the pavement outside was deemed to be the cause and in both occasions the tree was 'maintained' and the insurance made good the damaged caused but no underpinning was carried out.


We purchased specific buildings insurance to cover the historical subsidence and as soon as we had the keys I contacted the council to request the tree removed. In my opinion if the tree has caused damage twice before it will inevitably happen again and therefore the tree should be removed. I explained this to the council and they sent someone to the house to inspect the tree, their response was that they could not see any signs or subsidence. This was the case as I was asking for the tree to be removed as a preventative measure not a reactive one. I was then passed over to the councils insurance department. They sent their arboriculture chap to inspect, in the meantime the tree happened to be pruned back (the only tree on the street to have this done), he has reported that the tree is fine. Whilst we have been waiting for this second inspection we have noticed some cracks to the front of the building and lateral cracks in the hallway wall that separates the hall from the living room.


My questions are these:


What responsibility do the council have for the tree, I feel I have been proactive on this matter with them and I am now wanting to take this further with them as I feel they are ignoring the issue as it's likely their responsibility.


What's the best way to prove it's the tree causing the cracks? The historical problems are obviously good proof. We are a terraced house and the tree is close to the boundary line but my neighbour hasn't had problems.


Any advice would be much appreciated!!

quiet_advisor

I recommend tell your insurer about your concerns and encourage them to deal with it as they are carrying the insurance risk and have an interest in the outcome.

I had problem where a tree in my garden was causing damage to the house. I was unable to progress myself as the tree was the subject of a preservation order and the Council response was totally unhelpful and unsympathatic, even though I offered to plant a replacement tree further away from the house.

I involved the insurance company, as a party clearly having an interest in the outcome, and they were brilliant and took control of the issue totally - they are well used to dealing with this sort of thing and can call on much better qualified experts , both legal, structural and arbor, than the council staff.

Justicia

quiet_advisor wrote: »

I had problem where a tree in my garden... I involved the insurance company, as a party clearly having an interest in the outcome, and they were brilliant and took control of the issue totally...

What was the outcome?

topdaddy_2

Pruning the tree wont help or hinder. The tree is taking the moisture from the soil(Im guessing its some sort of cohesive geology) and the soil therefore shrinks leading to settlement. Removal of the tree would probbably sort it.

quiet_advisor

Justicia wrote: »

What was the outcome?

I believed that the large tree in my garden was causing damage to the house. It was the subject of a tree preservation order so I asked the Council for permission to take down the tree. The Council just said no, and would not take into consideration any potential damage to the house. i.e. TPO rules OK. ( rather like the Somerset Levels where the interests of mussels were more important than those of homeowners so dredging was ruled out of order).


My insurance company took it up, as an interested party, and used its experts to convince the Council to be reasonable and the TPO was lifted so I could chop down the tree. I paid for the chop, the insurers paid for the experts to convince the Council to be reasonable.