Branch of neighbour's tree has fallen onto my Garden shed

MyRealNameToo

TELLIT01 said:

I'm wondering if the distance of the tree and shed from the main property would have any bearing on a claim.  I don't know the answer.

Some insurers ask about tall trees in their quote process so would depend if the insurer did and if it qualified. Dont recall seeing anyone applying an endorsement for it but it's likely a rating factor. Could be particularly pertinent for those on clay soils like London making the property more susceptible to subsidence 

Never seen any clauses about damage not covered by trees beyond the normal of excluding fence damage but thats irrespective of distance. The biggest source of complaints is trying to recover costs from the tree owners where policyholders think someone else should be liable but the insurer taking the stance that such a claim is unlikely to be successful so they won't attempt it. 

punchdrunked

So I've had a chat with my neighbour. He's in the process of getting quotes from a couple of companies, but I think he's expecting me to share the cost, even though it's his tree. The first quote is £700, which will remove the tree, but nothing about the shed; "it's only resting on it, mate"

My excess is £400, which, if approved, would also cover the shed's broken roof, so I'm torn. My thought process is if he asks me to share the cost, I'd rather go via my insurers and see how I get on - if refused, I'll share the cost with him.

Given that the tree has fallen from his property, I'm expecting that he should fit the bill, but I'm not going to fall out with him over it. 

luci

punchdrunked said:

So I've had a chat with my neighbour. He's in the process of getting quotes from a couple of companies, but I think he's expecting me to share the cost, even though it's his tree. The first quote is £700, which will remove the tree, but nothing about the shed; "it's only resting on it, mate"

My excess is £400, which, if approved, would also cover the shed's broken roof, so I'm torn. My thought process is if he asks me to share the cost, I'd rather go via my insurers and see how I get on - if refused, I'll share the cost with him.

Given that the tree has fallen from his property, I'm expecting that he should fit the bill, but I'm not going to fall out with him over it. 

Neighbour disputes can make things difficult in the future if relations sour.  If you go through your own insurance, it may put up your premiums because you've had an "incident" whether you claim or not. It may be worth finding out the cost of repairing / replacing the broken roof to see if it's worth it.

MyRealNameToo

punchdrunked said:

So I've had a chat with my neighbour. He's in the process of getting quotes from a couple of companies, but I think he's expecting me to share the cost, even though it's his tree. The first quote is £700, which will remove the tree, but nothing about the shed; "it's only resting on it, mate"

My excess is £400, which, if approved, would also cover the shed's broken roof, so I'm torn. My thought process is if he asks me to share the cost, I'd rather go via my insurers and see how I get on - if refused, I'll share the cost with him.

Given that the tree has fallen from his property, I'm expecting that he should fit the bill, but I'm not going to fall out with him over it. 

To claim he is liable you would have to show that the tree was rotten, that he reasonably should have known it was rotten and had reasonable amount of time to do something about it. 

So, how many times had you told him the tree looked rotten? How long ago was the first time -v- when the storm happened?

Most trees that fall dont look rotten, households arent legally required to get a tree survey every X years, in most cases its an "act of God" so each party covers their own losses as you cannot legally sue God.

diveunderthebonnet

MyRealNameToo said:

punchdrunked said:

So I've had a chat with my neighbour. He's in the process of getting quotes from a couple of companies, but I think he's expecting me to share the cost, even though it's his tree. The first quote is £700, which will remove the tree, but nothing about the shed; "it's only resting on it, mate"

My excess is £400, which, if approved, would also cover the shed's broken roof, so I'm torn. My thought process is if he asks me to share the cost, I'd rather go via my insurers and see how I get on - if refused, I'll share the cost with him.

Given that the tree has fallen from his property, I'm expecting that he should fit the bill, but I'm not going to fall out with him over it. 

To claim he is liable you would have to show that the tree was rotten, that he reasonably should have known it was rotten and had reasonable amount of time to do something about it. 

So, how many times had you told him the tree looked rotten? How long ago was the first time -v- when the storm happened?

Most trees that fall dont look rotten, households arent legally required to get a tree survey every X years, in most cases its an "act of God" so each party covers their own losses as you cannot legally sue God.

I think Billy Connelly did in a film  but i have never seen it

MyRealNameToo

diveunderthebonnet said:

MyRealNameToo said:

punchdrunked said:

So I've had a chat with my neighbour. He's in the process of getting quotes from a couple of companies, but I think he's expecting me to share the cost, even though it's his tree. The first quote is £700, which will remove the tree, but nothing about the shed; "it's only resting on it, mate"

My excess is £400, which, if approved, would also cover the shed's broken roof, so I'm torn. My thought process is if he asks me to share the cost, I'd rather go via my insurers and see how I get on - if refused, I'll share the cost with him.

Given that the tree has fallen from his property, I'm expecting that he should fit the bill, but I'm not going to fall out with him over it. 

To claim he is liable you would have to show that the tree was rotten, that he reasonably should have known it was rotten and had reasonable amount of time to do something about it. 

So, how many times had you told him the tree looked rotten? How long ago was the first time -v- when the storm happened?

Most trees that fall dont look rotten, households arent legally required to get a tree survey every X years, in most cases its an "act of God" so each party covers their own losses as you cannot legally sue God.

I think Billy Connelly did in a film  but i have never seen it

Plenty of people have tried, like Ernie Chambers who as the senator of Nebraska sued God for a permanent injunction against widespread death, destruction and terrorization caused by "acts of God" like floods, earthquakes etc. His case failed as it was deemed he was unable to properly serve notice on God. His counter argument was that the Court had acknowledged the existence of God and therefore as God is omniscience he knows he's been served.

In 1969 someone did technically successfully obtain a judgement by default as God didnt respond to being sued for destroying the woman's home with lightning. Unfortunately when they subsequently filed for enforcement action the original judgement was struck out

punchdrunked

I've just spoken to another tree expert; his view is that the tree fell due to being "hollowed out" - a result of lack of care and inspections (costing approximately £700 and recommended every 5 years). My neighbour has 4 other trees close by, facing over the London underground car park, so he's going to recommend doing something about it before it causes damage to parked cars. People even.

As it stands, my neighbour will have to do something, as the neglect could cause potentially ruinous issues if left unattended. Let's see what he says.

My concern in all of this is that I think it'll be important to clearly separate responsibility for trees that are on my neighbour's land, as I don't want to get roped into any unforeseen issues, like damage to London transport electricity lines, car park damage, etc. I'm just a neighbour whose trees have fallen onto my property. In my time living at the property, I've removed 6 trees, my neighbour, none.

MyRealNameToo

punchdrunked said:

I've just spoken to another tree expert; his view is that the tree fell due to being "hollowed out" - a result of lack of care and inspections (costing approximately £700 and recommended every 5 years). My neighbour has 4 other trees close by, facing over the London underground car park, so he's going to recommend doing something about it before it causes damage to parked cars. People even.

As it stands, my neighbour will have to do something as the neglect could cause potentially ruinous issues if left unattended.

Let's see what he says.

Someone who gets paid to inspect trees is naturally going to say trees should be inspected, it's how they make their living. If they were council owned trees things would also be different because they have a heightened duty of care. 

What percentage of people do you think pay someone £700 every 5 years to inspect their trees? Unless its over 50% of the population its almost certainly not going to be what is considered reasonable. Can't say I have ever heard of anyone having their trees routinely inspected and only doing so when there was a particular cause for concern. 

Boohoo

punchdrunked said:

So I've had a chat with my neighbour. He's in the process of getting quotes from a couple of companies, but I think he's expecting me to share the cost, even though it's his tree. The first quote is £700, which will remove the tree, but nothing about the shed; "it's only resting on it, mate"

My excess is £400, which, if approved, would also cover the shed's broken roof, so I'm torn. My thought process is if he asks me to share the cost, I'd rather go via my insurers and see how I get on - if refused, I'll share the cost with him.

Given that the tree has fallen from his property, I'm expecting that he should fit the bill, but I'm not going to fall out with him over it. 

I am not 100% sure on insurance policies but don't you have to declare if asked about trees over a certain hight being within so many metres of the insured property.

Also not sure if that means the dwelling or the insured land.

I did know a person who's brick garage wasn't paid out because neighbours tree was blown over in a storm onto the garage and as it was tall and only 4 metres from the property boundary.

punchdrunked

MyRealNameToo said:

punchdrunked said:

I've just spoken to another tree expert; his view is that the tree fell due to being "hollowed out" - a result of lack of care and inspections (costing approximately £700 and recommended every 5 years). My neighbour has 4 other trees close by, facing over the London underground car park, so he's going to recommend doing something about it before it causes damage to parked cars. People even.

As it stands, my neighbour will have to do something as the neglect could cause potentially ruinous issues if left unattended.

Let's see what he says.

Someone who gets paid to inspect trees is naturally going to say trees should be inspected, it's how they make their living. If they were council owned trees things would also be different because they have a heightened duty of care. 

What percentage of people do you think pay someone £700 every 5 years to inspect their trees? Unless its over 50% of the population its almost certainly not going to be what is considered reasonable. Can't say I have ever heard of anyone having their trees routinely inspected and only doing so when there was a particular cause for concern. 

He doesn't do them due to potential liability issues. According to him, most people don't, until something goes wrong and they're suddenly faced with the stark reality of overgrown trees.

My neighbour has trees that block the light from my garden. I have apple trees that struggle due to the lack of natural sunlight. But I'm not one to complain, I just trim them as best as I can and keep the peace. I'm always concerned about the question when selling a house that asks: "Any disputes with neighbours?"

When the dust has settled (pun intended), I expect that my shed and its contents will have to be replaced.