Tree roots impacting the neighbours

alstemp

Hi MSE folks.  We have a number of large cypress trees down the boundary line of our garden with the neighbours.  

The roots have started to cause damage to the neighbours' garden, patio and wall of their house.  It's been building up over a couple of years and I have organised for the trees and roots to be removed at our cost.

The neighbours live in a new build house which is still within the 10 year NHBC warranty.   A family member has now weighed in to say it's not up to us to pay for the tree removal, it's  up to the  neighbours to claim against the warranty as the house was built too close to the line of trees and the developer should have known this.  

Does this sound right?  

Can I go ahead and get the trees removed anyway and ask the neighbours to claim?

Thanks for any advice

MysteryMe

This family member has got a report from a qualified arborist or building surveyor to substantiate their claims?

alstemp

Hi @MysteryMe - the neighbours have a surveyors report that details the structural damage  and that is has been caused by the roots of our trees.  which is  why I organised removal.

As regards the neighbours' house being built too close to our trees in the first place I don't know if that has been evidenced.

if this is covered by the 10 year warranty should the surveyor who did the structural damage report have raised that anyway?

MysteryMe

I'm not sure if the costs of tree removal and being able to claim off the warranty would form part of a surveyors report.

The neighbour is not going to be able to make a claim based on the house being built too close to the tree without evidence and I would imagine to gather such evidence would be a long and time consuming process. Then they would most probably have protracted dealings with the builder to get the matter resolved.

How long ago was it the next door house was built?  How far is it away from your tree?  Roots grow, so when the house next door was built it may be roots from your tree were not an issue but as time has moved on they have.

If it were me, I would do what it sounds like you you intended on doing originally and arrange the removal of the trees and roots and paying for it.   Your neighbour is the innocent party in this and they are the ones whose property has sustained damage. 

That's just my opinion. Others may have a different view point.

fatbelly

If you delay, you will be into a new growing season and the damage will get worse. I would get them out asap.

daveyjp

Removing a number of large trees in one go can cause as many problems as leaving them where they are.

ThisIsWeird

There surely has to be some level of responsibility if you build alongside already established trees?
You can mitigate against damage, say by digging a trench and putting in some form of barrier, but to just ignore what is obvious is too easy.

MikeJXE

When the neighbours house was built, the proximity of the trees would be taken into account and the foundations designed to accommodate any future growth 

Eldi_Dos

fatbelly said:

If you delay, you will be into a new growing season and the damage will get worse. I would get them out asap.

Until the type of soil and distances from properties is known that might not be best course of action.

Annemos

This Tree Removal Strategy is a concern for me, too. 

If the Trees pre-date the property, then there is a possibility of Heave taking place when on Clay Soil, if Trees are removed. 



Subsidence is:     when a House was built, the land was stable as regards its moisture content. Trees are then planted at the same time or afterwards. Over the years they get larger. And ultimately in a drought year, the roots dry out the clay too much, under the foundation, compared to when the home was built......  the clay has dried out and shrunk and the home goes downwards, causing cracking. (Generally, Trees can be removed or maintained, or a root barrier tried, to try and stop the roots taking up water.)  


Heave is:      when a New House is built and Trees are already there. The Clay is already dried out when built. These days, the foundation depth should have been designed to accomodate the Trees being there.  (Based on Tree distance, type of clay, type of Trees etc etc.)      If one now goes and removes the Trees, in the Winter and wet periods, the water goes into the clay under the foundation, making it wetter than when the home was built........... the clay has expanded and the home goes upwards causing cracking. This can take several years before it stops. 



My feeling is you should stay well away from this until more advice has been sought from experts (Structural Engineers). You are not currently liable in my opinion, because you could not have foreseen that this would happen to your neighbour. But if you do act to take the Trees down now, even more damage to next-door could arise from Heave. 

I fear that the other Homeowner may have to raise a Subsidence Claim with their Insurance Company to get the correct investigations done to see what the possibility is of Heave, if those trees are removed. It may be decided that the Trees should just be maintained, for example. Then when you are notified of what to do by that Insurance Company, then you would indeed have to carry that out or become liable for not acting.     Their property would also have to be monitored, potentially, to see what the seasonal movement is. (Crack monitoring equipment.) 


(Or does that somehow get done through the NHBC Guarantee and the Builder's Insurance? I do not know.) 


Just to add... if you are also near those Trees, could you also get Heave if the Trees are older than your own Property?


(I am not an Expert, but I had my own Tree Root Subsidence Claim.) 

Annemos

One more note on the above regarding liability.  One of the big Insurers won a claim on behalf of a Council. 

Homeowner wanted to take Court Action against the Council for not having maintained the Trees and letting them grow. 

The Council was held by the Court to not be liable because

-   it was not forseen that those particular trees would damage that property. (Many Trees are near properties and cause no damage.)

-   if Councils took down every tree near to a home, then we would all live in a Desert. 

-  Councils haven't the funding to do such a lot of tree management etc. 


BUT.... once the Council HAS been informed that there is damage, then it does have to act to carry out the recommended remedy, or it will then be held liable for the damage continuing. 


(My first reaction had been to "go after" the Council for my Council Trees. I soon found out it was a non-starter! Had to go through Insurance Company so they can provide all the evidence of damage and then instructions to the Council.)