Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If you have any experience dealing with local authority or insurance company please can you private message me, as I would appreciate advice and to hear from someone who's been successful in having a tree causing damage removed from the pavement outside house.

I love trees but it doesn't seem sensible to have planted species which are growing or will grow into tall/large trees and need somewhere for their roots to grow... huge problem in this area (stumps and empty patches in pavements galore) especially with clay soil already causing some soil movement. 

Thanks and hopefully no rude replies. Seem to be some on here with too much time, ready to attack or with sarcastic comments.

If you report this to Southwark they'll probably advise you to make a Third party claim or contact your insurance company. 

Obviously if your building is not yet affected you may be reluctant to contact your insurance company because it can lead to problems in future when you go to renew even if you don't make a claim. 

If it's just the pavement and garden wall etc you could start the conversation about removing/replacing the tree with the tree officer at Southwark, copying in your councillor if you get no reply.  

The claim advice is in the link if you want to go down that route or ring them for advice

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/housing/homeowners/leaseholders/building-insurance/make-claim

 

  • Thanks 1
48 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We had this problem. Went through insurance. Big mistake. My advice, patch up the cracks and don't worry about it.

Agreed 100%.

Don't go near your insurance provider. You will condemn your property to massively increased premiums for ever more. Plus you will find it virtually impossible to switch insurers in the future.

16 minutes ago, vladi said:

Agreed 100%.

Don't go near your insurance provider. You will condemn your property to massively increased premiums for ever more. Plus you will find it virtually impossible to switch insurers in the future.

Agreed 100% also. We went through an epic trauma getting a tree removed in Forest Hill and were then made to go through our insurance by the council for the repairs. Ended in complete misery--raised premiums, difficulty switching insurers, and all for a few very minor cracks! It's changed a lot over the past fifteen years, from what I can gather, because the previous owners of our house had a much more serious problem with the same tree, but they managed to get their insurance to force the council to pay...

Trees in streets can cause e.g. boundary wall disturbance and issues around the trunks, but remember that tree roots in the main go down, so are unlikely to directly disturb foundations of houses, although they can, on clay soils, have some impact on water tables which may consequently cause movement. However trees, with most older houses, even where they may show some cracking are often not actually materially disposed to cause real problems (which more often are caused by building on hillside slopes etc.). We had slight cracks in a front wall facing the street when we bought our house nearly 40 years ago, the cracks have now effectively closed and over those 40 years we have had no subsidence issues at all, (fingers of course still firmly crossed).  Insurers love subsidence and 'rising damp' as it allows them to whack up premiums without any real risk to themselves.

Unless you now have clear and visible problems I really wouldn't worry. And I'd certainly not start any process which may only result in your paying much higher premiums, or making your house unsaleable in the future.

A good neighbour would discuss the problem with you, take heed of your concern and do something about their tree causing or potentially causing damage to your property. 

Unfortunately Southwark seems to behave like a "bad neighbour" in this situation, not wanting to respond to concerns unless forced to by a third party claim. 

The only alternative is to keep badgering them to take seriously their responsibility for council owned trees in relation to neighbouring properties in the hope they will eventually act.

In the end the residents bear the cost either way ☹️

  • Thanks 1

@EDmummy101 is the tree causing issues now or is this pre-emptive? Our neighbours had a problem caused by a tree outside their property and the council did come to remove it but only after they had proved that it was the cause of the problem in their house.

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@EDmummy101 is the tree causing issues now or is this pre-emptive? Our neighbours had a problem caused by a tree outside their property and the council did come to remove it but only after they had proved that it was the cause of the problem in their house.

Can I ask how they proved it?  Structural engineer's report?  Insurance claim? Other?

The thing to be aware of, is once you know for sure that it's subsidence, you have to report it to your insurance company. So decide how bad the issue is and whether that's a ball you want to start rolling.  If it's just a few cracks, then I would just get then fixed up and not worry too much.

  • Thanks 1
On 19/03/2025 at 14:36, Rockets said:

@EDmummy101 is the tree causing issues now or is this pre-emptive? Our neighbours had a problem caused by a tree outside their property and the council did come to remove it but only after they had proved that it was the cause of the problem in their house.

Definitely problems caused by tree and clay soil, hot summers = less moisture in the soil etc

6 hours ago, EDmummy101 said:

Definitely problems caused by tree and clay soil, hot summers = less moisture in the soil etc

But also note that water tables in London have been rising as a consequence of industry closing down. A bit swings and roundabouts. And removing trees as well can cause movement. 

  • Agree 1

I had very bad subsidence in my front  bay. 

I had no choice but to involve my insurance company. One person who visited said it was the worst he had ever seen.

In the end, the whole bay had to be completely rebuilt. It was an absolute nightmare.

There is quite a large tree outside, but after extensive investigation, including  drilling down a long way and taking soil samples at various points, no evidence was found of tree roots in the soil beneath the bay.

It was eventually concluded that the subsidence was due to made ground (I think it's called), I believe from when the house was built.

I had to have resin injection all around the bay, but the work is guaranteed for ten (I think) years.

And yes, my insurance premiums shot up. At one point  I had to change my insurer, but I found a very helpful company who specialise in houses who have had subsidence, and got a much better deal through them.

If there is evidence that tree roots are causing subsidence, I would have thought that the insurance company would have a very strong case to make to the council to get the tree removed?

Though as Penguin68 says, removing a tree can cause heave (I think it's called), and consequently further problems.

Edited by Sue
Clarification

I live in a street of terraced houses.

I have just remembered that a house diagonally opposite to mine had major  subsidence in their bay, which was propped up with scaffolding etc for some time.

This was some years before my issues in my bay started.

The reason I'm posting this here is that there is a large tree outside their house as well. 

The tree  is still there, so I'm assuming that the tree was not the cause of their subsidence either.

There is also no sign of further cracking, so I assume that whatever remedial measures were undertaken worked.

Of course trees CAN  cause subsidence, but that is two incidences locally where very bad subsidence was not due to a  street tree outside the house.

I don't know the actual cause in that case (though I could find out, as the then  owner has moved but still lives locally) but my suspicion is that it was the same as mine, as all  the terraced  houses would have been built at  the same time.

Edited by Sue

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Approved scheme usually have three years to start. Start can be pretty minuscule in practice.
    • Ofcom states how to formally complain - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/make-a-complaint/complain-about-postal-services/royal-mail/ 1st step Royal Mail - https://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/Complaint_Handling_Process_AUG_2019.pdf  03457 740 740 https://help.royalmail.com/s/contactsupport/wheresmyitem Failing that - you can seek compensation form Royal Mail - https://personal.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/325 I've never needed to tried these - so if anyone has please let us know. 2nd step Postal Redress - https://www.cedr.com/consumer/postrs/overview/
    • We receive (should receive) 20-30 items of post a week, some subscription magazines, catalogues and (about a third) normal business mail (personal mail is far less frequent, save over Christmas and birthdays).  This tends to arrive in only two (more frequently one) delivery. Magazines are invariably late, often up to a week late. Not good for political weeklies. This has been my 'steady state' position following much worse frequency on the closure of the real ED Delivery Office, and of course Covid. There seems little point in complaining any longer - to anyone. There will be a sudden flurry of mail delivered, of course, in the few days after an MP intervention, and then it falls back into rubbish deliveries. It is a combination of senior management focus on high(er) value parcel and special delivery items (which I do get more regularly) which is a management decision, under-employment (vacancies) of posties and, I believe, extremely poor local management of what resources  Royal Mail actually has in Peckham. I don't now believe it is curable. I do believe that no one in Royal Mail management gives a sh*t!
    • The US has been one of the most dynamic high growth economies for several years. They have planning zones. The two are not mutually exclusive.  Two recent mobile phone mast applications in the area. Both of such terribly poor quality they were refused. They both broke the code of conduct all mobile operators singed up to. The agents were just trying it on. So huge cost of repetition and low productivity. Planning is blamed but it's just shoddy work.  Recent case of the new Kent Thame tunnel talking about £200m of planning costs - which turned out to be design, project planning and planning. I would suggest mostly the former.  It is lazy to blame planning process and generally by those who wont a no holes bar approach for their schemes without any consideration of the opportunity cost imposed on others.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...