Homeowners: When to query tree removal in a subsidence claim

Ive never thought of myself as an agony aunt in the traditional sense but, when I was asked by the Sunday Times to answer a reader’s question, I jumped at the chance.

In the Home Help of the Home Supplement, I answered a question asked by a reader regarding their tree root subsidence claim.  It was an interesting question as it’s a version of a question I have been asked numerous times before.

Q – The reader lives in a Victorian house built on a clay soil in west London.  Cracking at the property had been noticed in spring 2023 and a claim made to the insurance company.  Investigations by insurers revealed cracking in the drains but the instructed arborist (tree expert) concluded trees were the cause of the damage and that 4 trees in the garden needed to be removed. The reader was querying this decision as it was removal of almost all of their trees and without evidence which seemed to confirm that trees as the cause. 

I answered the reader so that that in subsidence insurance claims tree removal can often be the ‘first option’ in a claim.  Those involved in the management and investigation of subsidence claims specialise in these claims and have a lot of data about past claims in postcode areas.  As such, and often before any technical data is obtained on site to link a particular tree to the damage, the decision is made to remove trees which grow within the influencing distance of a property.  

So trees which can take years to grow, can be removed very quickly to see if that is enough to stop the cracking (which is a sign of the downward movement of the foundations) from progressing.  Rightly so insured homeowners often push-back on that procedure and either do not want their trees removed at all, or want to be shown clear causal evidence linking the trees to the movement, before any agreement on tree removal is given.  If trees are removed an they are not the primary cause of the damage then removing them is not going to solve the situation and could, in fact, make matters worse.

At the point at which the insured is being told what conclusions have been reached on the cause of damage and are being asked to consent to tree removal, they haven’t appreciated that their insurance policy would have allowed them to nominate their own engineers at the outset of the claim to carry out investigations.  That’s often not realised until the conclusions reached by the insurer’s appointed engineers isn’t liked and an alternative opinion is sought.  

Trees are not the only possible cause of damage to a property, even in an area on a clay soil whether other properties have suffered tree root subsiene damage.  In order to obtain independent input on the primary cause of the damage I advised the reader to obtain their own engineering report on causation and pointed them to the Institute of Structural Engineers to help them find a local engineer to help them.  

The outcomes of that report could be as follows:

1.  The engineer reviews the evidence obtained and agrees with the insurer’s conclusion and advises that the trees need to be removed in order to stop worsening crack damage.
2. The engineer might review the evidence and say that enough evidence hasn’t been obtained yet and the cause of the damage isn’t yet clear.  They can recommend more investigations to go ahead.
3. The engineer might review the evidence and conclude the cause of the damage is something else entirely and suggest an alternative repair.
4. The engineer might conclude that the damage is caused by trees but be more focused in the requested tree removal.  In law, the primary cause of the damage should be addressed.  There will not be a situation in which all 4 trees are the primary cause .

I understand that the reader who wrote in the Sunday Times took my advice and obtained their own engineering report.  The report highlighted that steps in the evidence gathering process had been missed and recommended that further investigations go ahead before a decision was made on tree removal and repair.

So, it’s a ‘watch this space’ in terms of the conclusion in the reader’s insurance claim. 

Tree root subsidence can seem technical and difficult to understand but I would urge anyone who questions an approach being taken by their insurance claim to discuss the approach with them.  Insurers are there to help.

Find out how we can help with a subsidence claim – Tree Root Subsidence | Tree Law – Legal tree expert or with insurance issues here – Insurance Issues | Tree Law – Legal tree expert