Advice on farmer's trees which would hit my house if they fell...

Tunstallstoven

Hi

I live in a rural area and my house is surrounded by farmer's fields.  At the back of the house is a copse owned by the farmer.  There are some very tall pines (think the tall pine trees you see on Forestry Commission land) which - if there were to fall - would hit our house.  The copse is on a reasonably steep bank which can also get very wet.  A couple of the conifers have already fallen, but luckily due to the wind direction fell into the copse.  It's a mountainous area and so the weather can be rather wild, with strong winds from all directions. 

I've raised my concerns verbally with the farmer about the trees falling and damaging my house and although he acknowledges that it is a risk, he's not taking any action. He's said in the past that he will arrange a tree surgeon to come and take a look, but nothing has happened to date. 

I'm getting increasingly concerned, especially with the recent storms and the amount of tree damage they've caused around here.

Would anybody be able to advise what the best course of action for me to take is, as well as the legal position should the trees fall and cause damage. 

Thank you very much indeed  

cw8825

From a cynical perspective- were the trees there when you moved in?
it is something your house insurance would cover
you can’t expect the farmer to take preventive measures just because you have fears. 

Or would you be willing to pay for the free surgeon yourself to put your mind at risk?

eddddy

If a tree unexpectedly falls on your house, then nobody is to blame - and you'd have to claim on your buildings insurance.

However, if the tree fell on your house due to the farmer's negligence - then the farmer would be responsible for the damage.

In simple terms, "negligence" means "not doing what a reasonable person would do".

So for example, if a reasonable person would foresee the risk of the trees falling, and therefore cut down the trees because of the risk - then failing to cut them down is negligent.


But you might need to have an acrimonious (and expensive) court case for a judge to decide what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.

Dustyevsky

You'd have to show the landowner was aware of the trees' dangerous state to have a claim against them in the event of damage to your house. How might this be achieved if they decide not to have the risk assessed, or refuse access to another's tree surgeon?

Since 1980, I've known of a very similar situation on the periphery of a country estate. The trees are 60'-70' tall. One or two have fallen, but no significant property damage has occurred. There is little hope of the risk being removed, so owners of the affected houses are resigned to this being something they must live with. It's not ideal, but neither is living at the bottom of a steep hill in the path of uncontrolled vehicles, or close to a river which may flood.

Personally, if offering the farmer a substantial sum to allow removal of the closest trees didn't resolve the situation, I'd sell the property and put the matter down to experience. Who'd be meeting the cost of any repairs would be of only academic interest.

Cressida100

I have a a very tall tree in my front garden which is a fair a distance from the house and I have to answer a question on my policy about the proximity of large trees. You probably had the same question on any policy you have. If you answered honestly I would assume that you are covered if there was an issue. 

TELLIT01

If the trees fell in a storm, and there was nothing to indicate the trees were obviously unhealthy/unstable, you would have to claim off your insurance.

sheramber

Have you asked the farmer if he has had a tree surgeon check the trees?

Maybe suggest you  pay half the cost if getting a report will allay your concern.

But the tree surgeon will only report if the trees are not healthy / liable to fall and need removing. 

XRS200

sheramber said:

But the tree surgeon will only report if the trees are not healthy / liable to fall and need removing. 

Surely if they were healthy, you would get a report from them to say do?

sheramber

XRS200 said:

sheramber said:

But the tree surgeon will only report if the trees are not healthy / liable to fall and need removing. 

Surely if they were healthy, you would get a report from them to say do?

Yes, but he will not  say that the trees may hit the OP’s if they fall in his direction which is what the OP is concerned about. 

 Being healthy does not stop a tree being blown down in a gale. 

XRS200

sheramber said:

XRS200 said:

sheramber said:

But the tree surgeon will only report if the trees are not healthy / liable to fall and need removing. 

Surely if they were healthy, you would get a report from them to say do?

Yes, but he will not  say that the trees may hit the OP’s if they fall in his direction which is what the OP is concerned about. 

 Being healthy does not stop a tree being blown down in a gale. 

Eh?  He could easily say if a sick tree could hit a house.  If they fall in his direction it's all about height vs distance.

Falling in a gale is different, largely depends on wind direction.

The point here is all about negligence.  If a tree surgeon says they are healthy and a storm fells them, it is very unlikely to be negligence related.