First time buyer and have tree subsidence

BigBoo

Thanks so much for all the advice. I am not worried about making money on it i just do not want to take a big hit and therefore say once all fixed have to sell it for £50k less then would if didn't have subsidence in the first place. If i can just get what i owe the bank i would be ok, as would hate to be in negative equity and this is a real first time buyer type home we never planned to stay as wanted to leave London.
The tree isn't protected by TPO our neighbours removed his 4 years ago. We have been told might have to take it to a stump then wait a year for roots to die and the ground to settle then to remove the stump and roots. Thank you

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]A tree surgeon will normally grind the stump at the same time as removing the tree. You can't remove the roots.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If you leave the stump it may sprout again or may rot and start to attract mould and fungi. [/FONT]

Marvel1

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I read it as upsetting enough to have to pay out £1,000 of money unexpectedly and, presumably, insurance terms in future will be more difficult/expensive. That's bad enough.

But it read to me as the main concern being:
- loss of house value
- more difficult to sell the house in future

and I would be very concerned about that. If OP is in an area like London then I fully understand the fact he had the security of knowing "I'm in an area where house prices just DON'T go down - ever. They just steadily rise" - as I've come from an area like that and it is quite an emotional "safety blanket" to have that knowledge. A "safety blanket" that doesnt apply to much of the country - but, when you know that you have it personally, it hurts to find your house has gone down in value.

So - yep....that loss of house value:eek:

Bought my mine in 2007, to date still not up to what I bought it for, do I care? Not really, I have a house (don't like the house that much, but I have a roof over my head).

teneighty

This doesn't make any sense.

If the house was built 13 years ago on a clay sub-soil with a mature tree within 10 feet then the building inspector would have insisted on special foundations to avoid this problem.

When you insurance company undertook their investigation they no doubt dug trial holes to inspect the existing foundations so what did they find?

Secondly, as others have suggested if you have subsidence due to a mature tree in close proximity the very worst thing you can do is to remove the tree. You will get heave which will cause more damage than the subsidence.