Recent house purchase - intentionally misled about garden

j2009

I doubt it was a deliberate concealment to deceive you, but rather they put it up to make it look nicer for themselves.

However, 3-4k sounds a bit toppy for taking down 5 big trees. Based on ones I've had cut down it should be about half that and that includes cutting the wood into cords and taking the unusable stuff away.... but you can always shove that on a bonfire if you need to.

Chances are what you pay to take them down will be about the same price as if you'd bought firewood (maybe even a little cheaper) so you're onto a winner really.

Also, if the trees do have any life left in them you could treat it as a copicing exercise and find you have a sustainable source of firewood.

Halmor

Thank you for the responses, everybody, I wrote this last night drunk and angry (and return tonight drunk but no longer angry) and was not expecting so many people to have offered their opinion. I appreciate it.

Many of you have commented that £3-4k seems steep and I agree. I think I was exaggerating to make my point. We were quoted prices in that range but have also received a quote for £2-2.5k and it is likely them we will go with. He was very helpful in filing reports in our arguments with the surveyor etc. and so to give him our business, at his reasonable price, seems the decent thing to do. It is understandably expensive as they are tall, hefty trees and will damage sheds, fences, houses if they are not brought down perfectly. So I accept that.

I did read a comment or two about how perhaps previous owners may not have realised they were damaged. Too tedious and irrelevant detail to go into but there were a significant number of little fibs that have revealed themselves since the purchase that are consistent with them concealing such a fact - the land the trees stand on is actually over a culvert and not technically owned by the homeowner, the previous owners stated they had received a certificate gifting them the land. This is not true and can only be a fabrication on their part. This is only one example of such things. Basically, I am a very trusting man and took them entirely at face value. My family often remind me that I am naive. The hiding of the tree damage was just another example of their dishonesty and I must learn to be suspicious of others' motives. Strikes me as a little sad, that we must all operate in this way, but it is definitely true. 

But all of you seem in agreement that we have little in the way of legal comeback on the issue and I'm glad of the consensus, at least we know where we stand. Thanks again. 

Picture for those who asked. It is not a little superficial damage, unfortunately - the innards of all trees has been exposed by damage to the bark and this is, it seems agreed by the experts we have asked (although experts who all stand to profit from the removal of said trees, it has to be said), guaranteed to ensure that they will decay and fall. I agree with those who stated that dead trees can stand for decades, I myself would be reluctant to shell out for their removal anytime soon, but my wife is more risk-averse than I - and we do have 3 young children who play out there  - so chopping them down in the near future is probably the prudent thing to do. 

martindow

Halmor said:

the land the trees stand on is actually over a culvert and not technically owned by the homeowner, the previous owners stated they had received a certificate gifting them the land. This is not true and can only be a fabrication on their part. 

If the trees are in fact on someone else's land, shouldn't they be paying for the costs of removing them?  Who owns the culvert if it's not you?

user1977

Halmor said:

 the land the trees stand on is not owned by the homeowner, the previous owners stated they had received a certificate gifting them the land. This is not true and can only be a fabrication on their part.  

So what was your solicitor's advice on this? You'd have even less right to expect the sellers to guarantee the condition of the trees if they weren't even their trees! 

sheramber

Did your solicitor not require the certificate gifting them the land during the conveyancing?

Who planted the trees?

Do you have any right to fell trees on land that does not belong to you?

GDB2222

We had a large tree fall over the other day, during the very hot spell. No warning at all, but fortunately nobody was hurt. It cost £300+vat to remove. It was in leaf, and I had no idea that there was anything wrong with it.

Your trees are a bit bigger, so a couple £k sounds like a sensible price. 

Your trees look obviously dead, as there are no leaves on them, so I would get rid of them asap. Even if there’s a TPO it doesn’t apply to dead or dangerous trees, but your tree expert can confirm that. As our tree was obviously dead, I told the council about it and sent them a picture. They confirmed by email that we could go ahead.

Section62

GDB2222 said:

We had a large tree fall over the other day, during the very hot spell. No warning at all, but fortunately nobody was hurt. It cost £300+vat to remove. It was in leaf, and I had no idea that there was anything wrong with it.

This isn't that uncommon - trees are most stressed when in full leaf.  Street trees with limited roots or unbalanced growth pose a particular problem when it comes to sudden failure.

GDB2222 said:

Your trees look obviously dead, as there are no leaves on them, so I would get rid of them asap. Even if there’s a TPO it doesn’t apply to dead or dangerous trees, but your tree expert can confirm that. As our tree was obviously dead, I told the council about it and sent them a picture. They confirmed by email that we could go ahead.

BiB1 - that assumes the picture is recent. It looks like there could be some Spring blossom on the tree on the right, and the grass looks very green for the current weather conditions.

BiB2 - If a TPO'd tree is dead or dangerous then it is essential to do what you've done and contact the council, the TPO isn't lifted just because someone thinks it is dangerous or dead, the council will usually want to confirm this, and for their own protection the owner should get confirmation in writing that removal or other work is acceptable.  A 'dangerous' tree could potentially be made safe by careful work.

theoretica

Looking at the picture, the trees were clearly damaged years ago and have had plenty of time for the bark and wood to round over the edges of the damage.  But is second from the left a chopped off ash?  Are you also contending with ash die back disease?

Woolsery

theoretica said:

Looking at the picture, the trees were clearly damaged years ago

You beat me to it; the damage is historic. The consequences might be current, of course though that photo's not.

Bendy_House

Interesting development, Halmor.

It would appear your choice is either to inform the seemingly-rightful owner of the land they stand on (who would that be - the council?) and hopefully oblige them to sort it out if there's a risk, or else take it on yourself and continue to enjoy that extra space - until/unless it's reclaimed.

I presume you'll be wishing to plant new, smaller..., trees there for screening?