Oak Tree on Purchase Property. NIGHTMARE!

FreeBear

Chrispurn said:

The tree is 13m from the neighbouring property it is affecting and 36 meters from the house we're buying. Here are some pictures of the tree...

36m from "your" house, it will not cause any problems for a very, very long time. 13m to the neighbouring property, I don't see the tree being an issue for another ~100 years. It would certainly have been there when the conservatory was built, so how ever laid the foundations should have taken the presence of the tree in to account. As has already been pointed out, conservatories are rarely built with decent foundations, and are regarded as temporary structures in some quarters.

Chrispurn

If this were you, would you proceed with the transaction, taking on the responsibility of the tree removal?
Are we making a mountain out of a mole hill here?

Chrispurn

I actually have the report from the Arboricultural Consultant. Would it be against forum rules if I were to post it here? Obviously I'd remove any parts that would identify property or people. 

Martin_the_Unjust

An oak tree spends 300 years growing, 300 years just being an oak and 300 years dying.

The one in the picture looks about 100 years old and a lot further from any house than the 80 year old oak in my garden is.

I would still buy the house provided there was a proper indemnity policy in place. Although to be honest I would probably buy it even if there wasn’t.

GDB2222

Chrispurn said:

If this were you, would you proceed with the transaction, taking on the responsibility of the tree removal?
Are we making a mountain out of a mole hill here?

As I said before, the cost of the tree removal is neither here nor there. It might cost more than £6k, or less, but the difference won't be massive.

It's the potential liability issues, and whether you can get insurance. If you are buying with a mortgage, your lenders will insist on full insurance coverage, without significant exclusions. You should avoid signing a contract before being certain that you can easily get insurance cover throughout the term of the mortgage. 

Chrispurn said:

I actually have the report from the Arboricultural Consultant. Would it be against forum rules if I were to post it here? Obviously I'd remove any parts that would identify property or people. 

It's not against forum rules. 

prowla

I've read this thread and all I see is trouble.

Is the £6k going to materialise and would it cover any removal, claims, and legal expenses?

At a minimum I'd be looking for an underwritten indemnity.

silvercar

The main question is whether you can get insurance.

If you can then the insurer will have the liability (and the way subsidence insurance works is that previous insurers pay a share of the costs to the current insurer, so they may be more willing to cover you). The first question I would ask is who is insuring the property currently.

if you can’t get insurance and you need a mortgage, you will find that the lender requires you to have insurance, so you have no option but to walk away.

ProDave

Another take on this, if you want to buy it and you want the tree to remain, anonymously tell your council you think someone is about to cut this wonderful Oak tree down, and it will very rapidly have a TPO on it.

Chrispurn

Bingo. Many of you called it. Thank you. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

I believe you need to look towards Khan v Kane with regards to liability:

The judge "also concluded that it was not reasonably foreseeable that an oak tree, a particularly thirsty species, of some 25 to 30 meters in height but located 10 meters away, presented such a [foreseeable] risk [of damage]. The oak tree did not have “any particular feature” that “would put a reasonably prudent landowner on notice”."

It seems like a complicated area of law.

Shame for the tree, conservatories are a dime a dozen, sadly less and less trees like that oak seem to be around.