Japanese Knotweed - Next steps

annetheman

As little as I know about botany and housebuying, I have been told many times to never offer on a place that has Japanese knotweed anywhere on the plot. I'd definitely reconsider but if you do manage to sort it, it would be good to know how!

Dawn1966

annetheman said:

As little as I know about botany and housebuying, I have been told many times to never offer on a place that has Japanese knotweed anywhere on the plot. I'd definitely reconsider but if you do manage to sort it, it would be good to know how!

That's the point though, I was told there was none in the garden or on the adjoining land by the surveyor, so went ahead and bought it (nearly 2 years ago) believing there was none - there is none in our garden at all, it's on the adjoining land close to our boundary, and around 50 metres away from the actual house so it's not as bad as it could be. Also I've found JKW isn't as bad as the industry & RICS would have us believe. It's no worse than trees being close to your house, and it can't grow through concrete as some say, but can grow through already weakened structures.  Apparently RICS are already looking into changing the way they report on it with the new evidence from the University of Leeds.

Skiddaw1

Absolutely @Dawn1966.

The main thing is that your garden is clear (and hopefully will remain that way). Sorry you had no luck with the Ombudsman but thanks for reporting back.

thearchitect

The Leeds report represents a moment in time, rather than a final conclusion.

The suggestion is that damage is no worse, for example, than trees.  Japanese knotweed has some distinguishing features that are relevant in this context. Japanese knotweed is particularly hard to eradicate compared with other plants, requiring multi-year treatment with herbicide or excavation. This is not the case with trees or plants such as buddleia. There is also an ongoing risk that the plant will regrow, either because it is only made dormant by herbicides or because fragments of the plant remain in the soil.

Even though the risk of structural (in the true sense) damage is low, if it encroaches on your property it can impact heavily upon your own hard and soft landscaping, entailing signifact control measures.

Dawn1966

thearchitect said:

The Leeds report represents a moment in time, rather than a final conclusion.

The suggestion is that damage is no worse, for example, than trees.  Japanese knotweed has some distinguishing features that are relevant in this context. Japanese knotweed is particularly hard to eradicate compared with other plants, requiring multi-year treatment with herbicide or excavation. This is not the case with trees or plants such as buddleia. There is also an ongoing risk that the plant will regrow, either because it is only made dormant by herbicides or because fragments of the plant remain in the soil.

Even though the risk of structural (in the true sense) damage is low, if it encroaches on your property it can impact heavily upon your own hard and soft landscaping, entailing signifact control measures.

What I meant and perhaps didn't make clear, is that RICS need to redefine their categories because my situation should be noted in the surveyor's report as risk category 2 under the current guidelines, meaning 'Japanese Knotweed was not seen within the boundaries of this property, but it was seen on a neighbouring property or land. Here, it was within 7 metres of the boundary, but more than 7 metres away from habitable spaces, conservatory and/or garage of the subject property.' however, if I had a tree next to the house where the roots could be causing structural damage I probably wouldn't have the same level of stigma attached and refusal of mortgage companies to lend to potential buyers if/when I decide to sell. But yes I agree with what you have said about the long term issues connected with Knotweed compared with other plants.

Dawn1966

Skiddaw1 said:

Absolutely @Dawn1966.

The main thing is that your garden is clear (and hopefully will remain that way). Sorry you had no luck with the Ombudsman but thanks for reporting back.

Yes obviously at the moment it seems to be steering clear, though I have noted it has encroached on other neighbours land along the row of houses where the JKW grows, so it is only a matter of time I'm sure, and obviously now there is a risk of it spreading sideways from those neighbours who are now affected.
Ok so although the Ombudsman didn't uphold my complaint exactly, they also haven't dismissed it completely. I still think there is scope for going further with a solicitor do you not agree, or am I clutching at straws here? The main issue of the survey is that the surveyor categorically stated that he saw NO EVIDENCE of it on adjoining land. He said he looked from the middle of the garden at one point, which means he didn't look over the fences, so he wouldn't have been able to see it growing on the adjoining land, and the Ombudsman is agreeing with that point I believe.

Dawn1966

These were the conclusions from the last debate in parliament about Japanese Knotweed in May 2019.
The presence of Japanese knotweed can affect the desirability of a property and therefore its valuation, even if the specific physical effects on buildings are not significantly different to other plants. If nothing else, land affected by Japanese knotweed is contaminated with material that has restrictions on disposal methods, makes development (e.g. extensions, garages) on the land more challenging, and comes with a risk of liability if the plant spreads to neighbouring properties. All of these factors will be unattractive to buyers to some extent. This alone might be sufficient to justify the inclusion of a question on Japanese knotweed in the Seller’s Property Information Form, but not the significance attached to it in lending decisions.
A significant industry is built around controlling Japanese knotweed, but we were told that mortgage lenders in other countries do not treat the plant with the same degree of caution. This gives us reason to believe that the UK has taken an overly cautious approach to this plant, and that a more measured and evidence-based approach is needed to ensure that the impact is proportionate to the physical effects of the plant in the built environment. We recommend that Defra commission a study of international approaches to Japanese knotweed in the context of property sales to further inform discussion of this issue, and report by the end of the year.
We recommend that the Law Society review the wording of the question in its Property Information Forms in consultation with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and others. In particular, it should consult with experts to determine whether the need to declare previous Japanese knotweed problems should expire if the plant has been treated by appropriate excavation and there has been no re-growth within a certain period. It should do this by the end of the year.