Responsibility for tree pruning. -updated post 7

silvercar

Our neighbours have a potential subsidence issue. Their insurer (or someone on their behalf) have written to use to ask us to remove at our cost a few leylandi and a laurel that we have that are well maintained and only 2m high. Our neighbour has leylandi that are well out of control and probably now 8-10m high.

The letter from the insurer doesn't identify whose trees are causing the subsidence and in fact talking with the neighbours the subsidence is not on our side of their property but the far side.

Whereas, I don't want to be unhelpful, I am loathe to remove our well maintained leylandi and particularly the single laurel if it is not proved that they are at fault. Also, they expect us to pay the costs. My interpretation of the ABI document is that the neighbours insurers should pay.

From the ABI document:

 "If subsidence damage is caused by a tree in a neighbouring property If your property suffers subsidence damage caused by tree root encroachment from a neighbouring property, the ABI’s Subsidence Tree Root Claims Agreement covers the procedure insurers will follow for these type of claims.

 ABI insurers have agreed that:
 • The insurer of the building or property damaged will investigate, handle and where appropriate settle the claim the claim;
• They will not pursue recovery against the insurers of the property responsible for the subsidence damage due to tree root encroachment;
 • If there is a recurrence of subsidence damage or no preventative measures are taken by the person liable for the encroachment, the Agreement will have no effect for subsequent claims;
• The Agreement will have no bearing in any uninsured loss claim which may be pursued against the person liable for the encroachment."

Any views on whether we should demand proof that it is our trees that are causing the problem (unlikely IMHO as the far neighbour of theirs has a massive willow tree)? and also who should pay.

MultiFuelBurner

I would reply to the requestor with the facts you know with photos of your well kept foliage and the neighbours as map showing where your foliage is and where the issue is in your neighbours property (Google maps or land registry map might be helpful here)

See if sense prevails.

Bigphil1474

What you've posted above doesn't say they will pay to have your trees removed as far as I can tell. It does say they won't pursue you for the cost of any damage if it is your fault - the first time it happens. They might do if it happens again. Who has actually written to you? I think the gist of what you are saying is correct, in that you shouldn't have to do anything if it's nothing to do with the actual subsidence. Plus, what could they do if you refused?

Personally, I'd go back to whoever wrote to me and ask for further information to justify their request - they may have got the wrog end of the stick.

silvercar

MultiFuelBurner said:

I would reply to the requestor with the facts you know with photos of your well kept foliage and the neighbours as map showing where your foliage is and where the issue is in your neighbours property (Google maps or land registry map might be helpful here)

See if sense prevails.

Their initial letter set this all out. Even though the subsidence is over the other side, I think they are doing a fire on all cylinders approach, in the hope that it will knock out the problem without having to do further investigations.Bigphil1474 said:

What you've posted above doesn't say they will pay to have your trees removed as far as I can tell. It does say they won't pursue you for the cost of any damage if it is your fault - the first time it happens. They might do if it happens again. Who has actually written to you? I think the gist of what you are saying is correct, in that you shouldn't have to do anything if it's nothing to do with the actual subsidence. Plus, what could they do if you refused?

Personally, I'd go back to whoever wrote to me and ask for further information to justify their request - they may have got the wrog end of the stick.

The letter is from people acting for our neighbour's insurers. We did write and their response is that trees cause damage so they need to go. Even though our letter said they should provide us with evidence that our trees are a problem. Their letter also said it is cheaper to remove than to regularly maintain. Though regular maintenance is what we have been doing for years and is our choice.

eddddy

More generally - you are liable if you are 'negligent'.

What the ABI has written is a kind of '30 second guide to negligence'.

Essentially, the first time your trees cause damage - it's difficult to prove that you were negligent.

But if somebody then tells you that your trees have caused damage, and tells you they are likely to cause more damage in the future - you might be negligent if you do nothing about it.


But for example, if you (or your advisers) believe that your trees won't cause damage in the future - you can do nothing. (Obviously, it's tricky for you, if you do nothing and they do later cause damage.)

MultiFuelBurner

Personally I wouldn't want to be told what to grow on my land but being as you are regularly maintaining them I hope the below info helps.

silvercar

Update:

I replied along the lines that we maintain our leylandii and laurel to a height of about 2m, with a photo. That if they could show that our trees were likely to be causing any issues we would remove, but their report didn’t identify specifically that our trees were the cause of the problem.

They replied that the insurer didn’t cover 3rd party costs.

I replied that I therefore would wait for further reports identifying our trees as the cause before considering removal, but being pragmatic, if their insurers decided that the cost of investigation outweighed the costs of removing our trees, I would consent to them removing our trees.

They replied asking for consent to remove our trees at their expense.

so it’s a win in terms of not having to spend money, but I will need to consider what to put in their place, and I really did like the laurel. 

Grizebeck

a nice mixed hedge , hornbeam, beech etc

ciderboy2009

Is there anything in the agreement with them that stops you from replanting with the same types?

silvercar

ciderboy2009 said:

Is there anything in the agreement with them that stops you from replanting with the same types?

Technically not, all we have done is given consent for them to remove our trees. But it would be rather churlish to plant what they have removed. 

FreeBear

silvercar said: and I really did like the laurel. 

Laurel is a real thug of a plant. Cutting down to ground level will see it throwing up suckers all over the place, so you need to get the roots out as well. Had one here that was kept to around 1m high and pruned to ground level a couple of times. When the time came to get rid of it, I used a mini-digger on the roots.