Council not taking responsibility for a tree that is causing subsidence damage to our property

owendevisser

Hi everyone.

We have an ongoing problem with our local (Birmingham) council, relating to a tree on the pavement directly outside the house.

The problem with the tree: It is a large (35ft) lime tree, that will have been planted around the same time as our house was build - about a century ago now. The tree is only 3 feet away from our perimeter fencing, and has completely destroyed the pavement around the base, meaning pushchairs/wheelchairs have huge difficulty getting past, but that is not really our issue.
The problem for us if that the roots encroach onto our premises significantly, causing small cracks as they hit the building, and raising the side passage noticeably. In fact one root runs 15ft down the side of our house, and is 6" wide. These roots are not small! On top of this, the tree is not pruned regularly and is growing over our roof, filling the gutters with leaves etc - but the main issue is the roots, and the widening cracks up the corner of our house where the tree is growing

Root pruning may work, but with the tree so close to our walls (around 11ft), the size indicates that the tree should be removed completely. Looking down our road, we can see that a few trees have been removed in the past (albeit decades ago), and likely due to the same cause

We have made numerous complaints to the council about this, who subcontract their work for all trees to Amey. Neither Birmingham City Council, nor Amey have been helpful at all.

Back in April 2019 Amey (apparently) came to look at the tree, and made an assessment that the tree was not damaging our property. They did this without knocking on our door (despite us being in), without inspecting our garden, our home or our side passage. They said they couldn't see any damage and stated that we would need to provide 'substantial evidence' that the tree was causing any damage. They would have only needed to meet with us for 2 minutes to understand our problem, which is one of the most annoying things

Forced to take action ourselves, we employed a certified Arborist to carry out an inspection. The arborist took samples from the tree, the roots and the soil - plus photographic evidence of the giant root, the pavement and the resulting cracks to our property. The inspection was thorough, and cost us £400

We submitted this to BCC, who have said this is 'not conclusive evidence' and 'just an opinion'. They have instead said we should go through our home insurance

We are getting completely frustrated with the whole system and their fobbing off, and each time we try to speak to BCC or Amey, they blame their computer systems or say that the person who we need to talk to is not there. We never get to talk to anyone with any authority. Instead we are fobbed off with emails from 'noreply@email' addresses

So...here's my question:

The reason we don't want to go through our home insurance, is that we feel that subsidence is a dirty word, and our premiums may go up regardless of the outcome. Maybe it can even show up on a homebuyers report? If we are forced to go through our insurers, how can they have a better 'opinion' than that of a certified arborist, whose sole job is to assess these problems, and has 2 decades of experience

Is there another way? Has anyone else come across the same repeated level of rejection from a council?

Thanks so much in advance for reading this far, and any replies we may receive

ps: Just a note. My wife and I actually love trees, are gardeners and lead quite 'green' lifestyles. I cycle everywhere, don't eat meat and get all our energy from renewable sources. However, we also love our house, and if it's a choice between our home slowly crumbling away and a tree, the choice is clear

AdrianC

If you want the local authority to pay, then you're going to have to take them to court - either to pay the bill for the work you feel is required on your house, to get an injunction forcing them to remove the tree, or both.

(I suspect the other trees down the road were removed because they were dead or dying - and I strongly suspect that they would have a TPO on them. If they'd been removed due to causing structural issues, they'd have taken the whole lot down.)

You will need to prove your assertion - and that's not going to be easy. Or cheap. And, if you lose, you're on the hook for the local authority's costs, too.

Things that are likely to come up...

The tree is around a century old. The roots will have spread to their current position many, many years ago, when the tree was growing. If the problems have appeared recently, then the presence of the roots may be coincidental. How long have you lived in the property?

The arborist is a tree specialist - is he a structural engineer for buildings, too? I'm sure he can identify a root, but is he qualified to comment on the structural issues, the suitability of the foundations for the soil type, and the various other structural factors?

You say that there are other similar-construction houses and similar-age trees in the road in the same proximity. Are all the houses similarly affected?

owendevisser

Dear Adrian, thanks so much for replying

AdrianC wrote: »

If you want the local authority to pay, then you're going to have to take them to court - either to pay the bill for the work you feel is required on your house, to get an injunction forcing them to remove the tree, or both.

Thanks for the advice, but this seems very risky and expensive. My question was should we go through our home insurance, or will this just bring up new issues and costs?

AdrianC wrote: »

(I suspect the other trees down the road were removed because they were dead or dying - and I strongly suspect that they would have a TPO on them. If they'd been removed due to causing structural issues, they'd have taken the whole lot down.)

To be honest, I'm not sure why the others were removed. We only moved in 2.5 years ago, and the residents we have asked are also fairly new to the area. But the tree outside our property is the only one causing significant problems to the pavement. The other trees are not all lime trees, and do not seem to be as much of a problem

AdrianC wrote: »

You will need to prove your assertion - and that's not going to be easy. Or cheap. And, if you lose, you're on the hook for the local authority's costs, too.

Things that are likely to come up...

The tree is around a century old. The roots will have spread to their current position many, many years ago, when the tree was growing. If the problems have appeared recently, then the presence of the roots may be coincidental. How long have you lived in the property?

As above, 2.5 years. However, new cracks have appeared since we moved in, and are in the area that the roots the surround that corner of the house

AdrianC wrote: »

The arborist is a tree specialist - is he a structural engineer for buildings, too? I'm sure he can identify a root, but is he qualified to comment on the structural issues, the suitability of the foundations for the soil type, and the various other structural factors?

It is true he specialises in trees, but also the problems caused by trees - including problems to buildings. He was recommended as he had solved a similar issue before, although the tree in the previous case didn't belong to the council. He certainly knows his soil too, and takes samples that are tested at a university lab to quantify his findings. It's not an 'opinion' that there is a huge root growing down the side of our house, or that roots are hitting our brick work. Photographic evidence of this was supplied and dismissed

AdrianC wrote: »

You say that there are other similar-construction houses and similar-age trees in the road in the same proximity. Are all the houses similarly affected?

No, not presently. As they are not all lime trees.

I really appreciate you taking the time to read and reply to my post. Can I ask your authority on this, as we have received a myriad of different avenues to follow over the last 9 months.

Should we go through our home insurance and what are the risks?

Thank you

AdrianC

owendevisser wrote: »

Can I ask your authority on this, as we have received a myriad of different avenues to follow over the last 9 months.

As with almost everybody else here, I'm an interested and informed (to a certain degree) layman. No more. Anybody with professional experience and qualification posting here would be doing so in a personal capacity only.

Should we go through our home insurance and what are the risks?

The risks are - as with any insurance claim - that they'll refuse to pay, that they'll charge you an excess, and that your future premiums may be higher.

As far as any future stigma attached to the property goes, the work required is the same whoever pays, and any stigma arising from underpinning will be the same whoever pays.

Mistral001

The OP mentions cracks, but does not say where they are. Are they actually in the walls of the house? If they are, then you need the services of a chartered structural engineer to determine their cause.

The Arborist can give an opinion on structural matters like this but such matters will be considered outside his area of expertise and thus his opinion will not carry much weight. The opinion of a chartered structural engineer on structural matters will carry a lot of weight however.

eddddy

• Are you wanting to claim damages from the council for the cost of repairing the damage to your property so far?

• Or are you wanting the council to take action to prevent further damage to your property?

If you want to claim damages for the cost of damage caused so far, you'd have to show that the damage was 'reasonably foreseeable' - i.e. the council knew or should have known that the tree would cause damage.


Now you have told the council about the likelihood of further damage, if they don't take reasonable steps to prevent further damage, you can claim for the cost of any further damage that is caused.


Whilst I can see that the council would not want to accept liability for any damage so far (i.e. they'll say it was not foreseeable), it's strange that they won't prune the tree or roots to prevent further damage.

If you can't persuade them to do anything voluntarily, ultimately you'd have to get an injunction forcing them too - which would be expensive.

sevenhills

owendevisser wrote: »

Root pruning may work, but with the tree so close to our walls (around 11ft), the size indicates that the tree should be removed completely. Looking down our road, we can see that a few trees have been removed in the past (albeit decades ago), and likely due to the same cause.

Can you just dig a 2' deep trench in your property, cutting any roots, might be quicker and cheaper than any other course of action.
Maybe you could do a freedom of information request asking why the other trees in your road were felled, but not yours? Might be helpfull.

Sea_Shell

Did you declare the presence of the tree to your insurers?

They usually ask about trees within X metres that are over X metres high.

DoaM

What did your solicitor say about the tree when you purchased 2.5 years ago? (It must have come up during the purchase process).

AdrianC

DoaM wrote: »

What did your solicitor say about the tree when you purchased 2.5 years ago? (It must have come up during the purchase process).

Or, indeed, the survey?

One thing's for sure. A 100yo, 12m mature tree hasn't grown much in two and a half years.