Conifer roots

moneyistooshorttomention

Perhaps I've been misinterpreting stuff I've read about neighbours trees damaging one's own property? - as it looked to me as if the insurance companies might decide I'd gone in for "contributory negligence" if I didnt warn her officially that her trees might damage my property at some point in the future. That was why I thought I might need to send her a letter (which she would doubtless ignore) in order to prove I had tried to prevent her trees doing that and thus putting 100% of the onus for damage caused by her on her insurance company and/or her personally iyswim.

But I'm guessing, from what you say, that maybe I don't need to send a "cover myself" letter to her and could just do what seems logical to me if it comes to it and her trees do damage my property - ie get my insurance company to find out who her insurance company are and they would cover 100% of their bill and reclaim any part of it from her that they decided she personally was to pay - rather than expecting my own insurance company and/or myself to cover any of it or take her to small claims court for it?

Davesnave

karcher wrote: »

I had to read that 4 times before I understood what you were saying :doh:

Well, I had to look 4 times before I could believe what I was seeing!:rotfl:

Then I had to follow the car for another 5 miles, before I could ask the driver how he was driving the car I'd been told was 'uneconomic' to repair.

But this a long route away from conifer roots....

Davesnave

Money, you may be thinking of Kane v Khan:

https://www.rollits.com/news/articles/high-court-confirms-relevant-test-when-determining-liability-for-tree-root-damage.aspx

I think this says that ignorance is no excuse on the part of the neighbour, but also, by implication, that correspondence you send them should carry weight and be provable. If you just send a letter yourself, they can say, "What letter?"

Apodemus

glasgowdan wrote: »

Brilliant! They need to pin it on something for some reason I suppose.

...and if the trees had previously been removed, they would have blamed it on the clay soil now absorbing more water and swellling, causing damage to the foundations!

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

Money, you may be thinking of Kane v Khan:

https://www.rollits.com/news/articles/high-court-confirms-relevant-test-when-determining-liability-for-tree-root-damage.aspx

I think this says that ignorance is no excuse on the part of the neighbour, but also, by implication, that correspondence you send them should carry weight and be provable. If you just send a letter yourself, they can say, "What letter?"

Thanks.

I've read that article. It is that sort of thing I am thinking of.

To me - that article says it's basically the guilty party's fault (ie Mrs Kane) that tree damage has occurred to the other house. But it is saying "It's contributory negligence that the innocent party didnt tell Mrs Kane that her trees needed trimming - and therefore they must cover 15% of the cost of damage".

Obviously - I wouldnt intend to pay any of the cost of damage someone else had caused. That's why I'm wondering whether I need to send her a letter requesting removal of the trees - which she will ignore doubtless. But the copy I would have kept would prove I had tried to do what I could (ie requested their removal) and I would be in the clear for her having to cover 100% of the cost.

I think the "reasonable person" test means that a normal person living in her house would be aware of the possible future damage - even if she personally isnt or doesnt believe me (which she wouldnt:cool:). Also I would say that a "reasonable person" test would cover me (as a private individual) sending her a letter - as I and other "reasonable people" would have cause to believe there might be future damage (ie I wouldnt need a specialist letter stating this - as any "reasonable person" standing in my garden could see the risk and wouldnt need to be an 'expert' to do so).

Hence - the indecision/hoping the fact she is very elderly will cause the problem to be resolved without my having to do anything (ie new owner of that house with rather more sense than she has moves in and removes the trees even just from their own personal pov of protecting themselves).

Davesnave

There are tens of thousands of leylandii planted alongside walls in this country, and I don't suppose many of their owners think for even a millisecond about it.

I also don't think many of the walls fall down. There's been four or five leylandii living alongside a wall I built in 1980, shortly after they were planted, and so far as I know, the wall's still there.

mysterymurdoch

Money, you're missing the point. Your neighbours conifers aren't ever going to make your wall fall down! Stop thinking about it.

springdreams

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Well I'm hoping that those conifers were what they chose to "pin it on" - rather than being the actual cause iyswim - as I'm in a very similar situation.

Reason being my awful next door neighbour has got a couple of conifers (yep...leylandii) planted in her garden and only a very short distance from my garden wall that is in between us.

I keep wondering whether I should send her an official letter requesting removal or no - specifically to have a copy to keep for her insurance company if I have to claim against her for damage to my property ever (to prove that she does officially know about the hazard). Also, of course, in the hope that she might see sense (but I rather doubt she has any sense - as she has planted them very close to her own house:cool:).

Another reason for me being very glad she is distinctly elderly - as I would imagine any prospective next owner of her house would be a good bit more sensible and get rid of them quick:cool:.

It is a dilemma as to what to do for the best...

I had no claim whatsoever against my neighbour. My insurance paid the full cost barring the £1000 excess, which I had to pay.