Hi

Sorry to hear all this about your trees it must be stressful .

You need to see a solicitor to see were you stand in all of this also they will have to prove that your trees have caused the damage which they will have to pay for ie structural report and not just willy nilly say "its your trees" So as you can see its not straight forward for both parties.
They should be going to there own insurance company first.

Hi Jahydr and welcome to GoY. GG has given you some good advice and, unfortunately this isn't something you ca resolve just by talking to the neighbour... good luck!

Hi Jahydr, and welcome to Goy. Sorry, but I'm in a this sort of problem with my neighbours but from the other side as in they will not cut their hedge putting my garden into total shade,sorry again. I found out that there is such a thing as the "High Hedge Act". This refers to a row of everygreen trees and shrubs forming a hedge. I think it's under the 2003 "anti social behaviour act." If they found out about this act, pay a fee to your council who then order you to take action. Failure to do so can result In it being put before the magistrate court so like the others I would surgest you get some legal advise. Jen

If your neighbours are saying your trees have caused a problem, they should have proof to show you. When structural problems occur with a house, any suspect tree roots are extracted by the surveyor's team and sent to a laboratory for identification, especially if the suspect roots are from a neighbouring property. Ask them for the report on this. If they do not have one, and I suspect they don't, tell them they need to get one, because you don't have to do anything at all until someone provides evidence that your trees are to blame.

Frankly, I think it unlikely your trees have caused the problem - they were in situ before the neighbour's building went up, and so the surveyors on that job should have taken that into account, its not your fault if they didn't. The other thing is, your trees are conifers - conifers do not put out large, intrusive and damaging roots like broadleaf trees do, they tend have a lot of small, fibrous roots which are much less likely to cause any damage.

If you have buildings insurance, you may need to contact your insurance company for legal advice if the neighbours threaten legal action, but without the laboratory ID report, they haven't a leg to stand on. I only know this because I used to work for an Architects and Surveyors firm - the surveyors there were often called to ascertain the cause of structural problems, and always sent any roots to a laboratory for ID.

In regard to the High Hedges Act, although Jen makes a good point, this is not relevant at the moment - the neighbour's complaint is about structural movement, not lack of light, but if they start complaining about lack of light, you will need to investigate where you stand on that.The fact is, the High Hedges Act may not apply in these circumstances, because your trees have been present for 25 years and their building was erected ten years later, when they knew the trees were already there, and still built anyway, but that's a subject for later, if they argue about it, the immediate concern is the accusation of structural damage.

You need legal counsel. We are just a motley crew of amateur gardeners swapping ideas. You need to speak with a real estate attorney who is licensed by the state to give advice on zoning laws, property rights & real estate matters.

It is all slightly different in the UK Bathgate and Bamboo has given the correct advice.

As I said and I can't emphasize this more. You MUST seek counsel from a licensed PROFESSIONAL who specializes in real estate, zoning laws and property rights for your particular area. You need an advocate who can defend you, if you should get summoned to court.

Anybody who tries to give you legal advice, and is not qualified, will get you and themselves into a 'boatload' of trouble. Don't go there!

You know, Bathgate, everything you say says far more about you than it does about me - its called projection, and I know you probably can't help it, but you need to try to stop doing it, it doesn't make you popular. You might want to read what I said more carefully - I have not professed to have given legal advice, and since I'm not a lawyer, would not attempt to do so.

Bamboo

thats not very nice to say is it! I thought you better than that.

"and I know some others on here are or were professionals rather than part of your 'motley crew of amateurs"

Deleted this comment

Thank you all for your advice.
The people that own the property run a water adventure centre and it isn't residential. We are next to a canal.
They are saying that their insurance say I have to cut the trees down and poison the stumps.
I have discovered that the trees were planted 35 years ago and not 25 (luckily the people I bought the house off lives next door and he said he planted them 35 years ago), the extension was built 15 years ago.
I have spoken to a builder who says that there are building regulations that state if the trees were there first and established that the builders have to dig deeper for the foundations, clearly something they didn't do.
I know the law says I am not liable for the damage as I am not a tree expert, so their insurance will be paying for the damage.
But I want to defend my case because if they identify my trees as a problem and I don't do as they say and cut them down I am liable in the future for any damage.
But I argue it is poor foundation work and poor tying of the bricks that has caused the damage. And if I don't argue it now they won't fix the foundations and there will be further damage which they will sue me for !!

I'd still ask for proof your trees have caused a problem, i.e. a report of samples taken from a laboratory, because if they haven't go that, you don't need to cut them down, poison them or anything else. Its up to them to prove it's your trees... the fact their insurance is paying for the damage is telling, they know its not your trees already, the insurance company is just playing safe by telling you to kill your trees. When trees are in situ when a building goes up, they don't usually trouble the building - its if trees are planted too close later they might cause a problem, or if trees are removed after the building has been erected; subsequent removal sometimes causes issues with water because the trees are no longer there. The insurance company concerned should take the right advice. You may need to get a lawyer, if you've cover for that under any insurances you currently have. Alternatively, appeal to the Insurance Ombudsman about the order to kill your trees.

Gnarlygnome - you must not have read all I said, or have missed the next bit where I mention people being experts in certain areas who are not qualified and not professional gardeners - I consider you to be someone who gives informed and useful advice. People don't have to be professional or qualified - for instance, Bulbaholic knows more about alpine plants than I'll ever know, Andrewr has a broad and extensive knowledge of plants, including rare and unusual ones, and there are others with extensive knowledge, so that's why I object to everyone on here being described as 'a motley crew of amateur gardeners'. Amateurs can be pretty knowledgeable...

Please! This poor new GOY member just asked for some advice! Please don't put them off by arguing who is right or wrong, what an example of the site to give. Everyone can have an opinion and I'm not even going to comment on this, advice has been given and I hope it all works out for Jyhadr.
Welcome to and please stick with GOY, we are usually happy, helpful people who love our gardens.

Bathgate I thought you had stopped making comments like these?

Comments like this? I was trying to quash her tirade by not feeding into it. I feel like I've walked into a minefield unknowingly. lol!

Tirade? Lol.