Tree Law quoted in The Guardian as subsidence claims surge

Tree Law was recently quoted in The Guardian as part of its coverage of the sharp increase in subsidence claims being experienced across the UK following successive hot, dry summers. The article, published on 12th September 2026, looked at the impact that prolonged dry weather and shrinking soils are having on homes, insurers and the wider claims industry. ‘We can see into the other room’: insurers face surge in subsidence claims | Insurance industry | The Guardian

It is a subject we know extremely well.

The Guardian reported a significant increase in subsidence claims during 2026, with insurers dealing not only with new claims arising this summer but also with cases from 2025 that are still progressing through investigation and repair.

The combination has been described as a potential “double surge” for the insurance industry.

The issue is particularly acute in areas with shrinkable clay soils. During prolonged dry periods, clay soils lose moisture and reduce in volume. Where that movement is uneven beneath a building, it can result in differential foundation movement and the characteristic cracking associated with subsidence.

Trees can form part of that picture because they remove water from the soil. However, the presence of a tree near a damaged property does not, by itself, establish that the tree has caused the damage.

Establishing causation properly remains critical.

The Guardian spoke to Tree Law founder Sarah Dodd about what happens in the more serious tree-related subsidence cases and, in particular, the effectiveness of underpinning.

Sarah told the newspaper that, in approximately 25 years of dealing with tree-related subsidence cases which have resulted in legal disputes:

That experience is important because subsidence cases can sometimes become focused on the removal of a tree as though it is the only possible solution. It isn’t.

The appropriate response depends upon the evidence, the cause of the movement, the characteristics of the building and soil, the significance of the tree and the range of engineering and arboricultural solutions available.

In some cases tree management or removal will be justified. In others, engineering works may provide the appropriate long-term solution. Frequently, the difficult question is how those competing options should be balanced.

The scale of the current increase in claims creates another problem: capacity.

Subsidence claims require coordinated input from insurers, engineers, arboriculturists, claims handlers, contractors and, where disputes arise, lawyers. When claim volumes rise significantly, delays can develop throughout that chain.

At the same time, tree-related cases can involve additional complexities.

The tree may belong to a neighbour or a local authority. It may be protected by a Tree Preservation Order or situated within a conservation area. There may be disagreement about causation. A tree owner may challenge the evidence provided by an insurer. There may also be questions about mitigation, foreseeability, recoverability of costs and responsibility for historic or continuing damage.

Those issues can turn what initially appears to be a straightforward subsidence claim into a much more complicated legal dispute.

Periods of prolonged dry weather will inevitably bring renewed attention to trees situated close to buildings.

But increased subsidence risk does not remove the need for robust evidence.

For insurers and their suppliers, establishing the mechanism of damage and assembling the necessary engineering and arboricultural evidence at an early stage can help identify which cases genuinely require action by a third-party tree owner.

For local authorities, housing associations and other significant tree owners, the same evidence is essential when assessing requests to prune or remove trees said to be implicated in subsidence damage.

The objective should be the same on both sides: to reach an evidence-based solution which deals effectively with the property damage while avoiding unnecessary loss of trees.

Tree-related subsidence sits at the intersection of property, insurance, engineering and arboriculture. It is precisely the type of work for which Tree Law was established.

We advise insurers, claims professionals, local authorities, housing associations, property owners and other organisations on tree-related subsidence claims and disputes, including causation, liability, mitigation, protected trees, recoverability and the legal implications of proposed tree or engineering works.

As the number and complexity of subsidence claims increase, obtaining specialist advice early can help identify the real issues, resolve disputes more efficiently and ensure that decisions about both buildings and trees are supported by the evidence.