Roots from my tree damaging neighbour's patio

Jane98

Hi,
I have an established Birch tree inside my boundary wall that was probably planted around 40 years ago, before my neighbour's property was even built. Now it seems that the roots are damaging a patio in my neighbour's garden. He wants me to cut it down but I have a number of questions about this:
1) Do I have to
2) Can I make it conditional on payment for all or some of the costs with this and even replacing it with a mature tree with less invasive roots?

Does anyone has experience of something similar? H

looksee

Birches do have an extensive shallow root system. When we moved into our current house there was a concrete slab near some silver birch trees. A pile of sand had been dumped on the concrete, evidently some years ago. When we moved the sand there was a very substantial root at least an inch in diameter growing over the concrete and under the sand, with lots of side roots growing out of it. I just cut it off, there was no other way of dealing with it. The tree doesn't seem to have been harmed by this operation. You could not cut off a number of roots without making the tree unstable, but if its just one root causing problems, that is one solution.

Whether you are obliged to cut the tree down is another matter. My neighbour wanted me to cut down several trees because he thought they were shading his garden. Only one was actually causing any problems, it was too big for the space and I did remove that one. The rest stay, and really they are not causing any problems, they are well within my boundary, he just doesn't like trees.

The situation is complex, https://www.treecouncil.ie/trees-and-the-law this article gives an indication of the legal situation but there is no clear cut rule, co-operation and discussion is the way to go.

The Continental Op

Even if you do cut the tree down the problem will continue for a few years as the old roots die off. So if your neighbor doesn't take all the roots out when redoing their patio the problem will persist. If they do nothing the patio slabs will continue to move as the roots die.

magicbastarder

cutting down a 40 year old tree to save a patio would be verging on criminal if you ask me.
if your neighbour built his patio beside a decent sized tree, it's his lookout if you ask me. though that hardly constitutes a legal opinion.

i don't know if this is the sort of question you'd be better off asking on the legal issues forum?

wildwillow

If it were damaging his house I would investiate further, but not a patio. Depending on distance from patio to tree, it should be possible to trim the roots.

How close is it to your house and have you checked for damage.

Seth Brundle

Is there a block wall between you both? If so, surely the roots would travel downwards under the foundations and are unlikely to come back upwards?

alias no.9

Surely this is on whoever laid the patio for not putting in a stable base? How old is the patio?

The Continental Op

OP has your neighbor lifted any of his patio up and found roots underneath and shown them to you?

As said if there is a wall between you then there is not much likelihood its your tree doing the damage.

Jane98

The Continental Op wrote: »

OP has your neighbor lifted any of his patio up and found roots underneath and shown them to you?

As said if there is a wall between you then there is not much likelihood its your tree doing the damage.

There is a block wall that was built some time after the tree was planted. The wall looks like it has been affected too but it doesn't look like it was particularly well built either.

Jane98

alias no.9 wrote: »

Surely this is on whoever laid the patio for not putting in a stable base? How old is the patio?

No idea, but I'd say it's prob. 10 + years old. It was built by the previous owners of his house and we weren't living in ours then either.

The Continental Op

What sort of distances are we talking about tree>wall>patio?

Jane98

The Continental Op wrote: »

What sort of distances are we talking about tree>wall>patio?

Tree to wall - 1m and wall to patio - 10m

The Continental Op

So yeh the wall probably damaged the patio less likely. I'd tell them its not your tree.

Jane98

The Continental Op wrote: »

So yeh the wall probably damaged the patio less likely. I'd tell them its not your tree.

How would the wall have damaged the patio?

noodler

Surprised by the responses.

If one neighbors roots are damaging another's garden I thought there would be legitimate grounds for complaint and action.

The Continental Op

No the tree has damaged the wall but probably not the patio.

Just because someone has a badly laid patio doesn't make it the fault of the nearest tree.

noodler

The Continental Op wrote: »

No the tree has damaged the wall but probably not the patio.

Just because someone has a badly laid patio doesn't make it the fault of the nearest tree.

I'm just assuming roots have encroached on the neighbors garden and damaged property on his garden as the neighbor has claimed.

The Continental Op

noodler wrote: »

Surprised by the responses.

If one neighbors roots are damaging another's garden I thought there would be legitimate grounds for complaint and action.

What if its a badly laid patio 10 meters away from a tree.

Some people would think up any excuse to cut a tree down.

We don't know how well the patio was laid or if any roots have been found anywhere near it.

noodler

The Continental Op wrote: »

What if its a badly laid patio 10 meters away from a tree.

Some people would think up any excuse to cut a tree down.

I guess I'd counter with the obvious.

I decide what goes in my garden. I want the patio, I don't want the roots (especially if they are damaging my property).

Where the neighbor decides put his own patio seems immaterial to me to be frank. As long as it was in their own garden.

Jane98

noodler wrote: »

Surprised by the responses.

If one neighbors roots are damaging another's garden I thought there would be legitimate grounds for complaint and action.

Even if the tree was there a long time before the patio?

magicbastarder

10m strikes me as a bit beyond the range the roots would cause problems - if this is to be believed, the maximum root spread recorded for birch is 10m.

http://subsidencebureau.com/trees-distances/

has the neighbour provided any proof it's the birch causing the issue? or is that just supposition?

i dug a pond probably 10m from a large birch in my garden (planted in 1988) and i don't remember any signs of roots from the tree.

looksee

The first thing to do would be establish whether or not the birch roots are in fact causing any issues. It seems very unlikely that roots 10 m away from the tree, even if they travel that far, would do damage.

According to this article http://subsidencebureau.com/trees-distances/ the maximum distance travelled by birch roots is 10m, so while it is possible it seems a bit unlikely.

Jane98

I think the next steps are to establish if the roots really are the issue. The neighbour showed my husband the patio which is lifting in areas but this may be because it was badly laid. We need to lift a couple of slabs to determine what the issue is and measure the exact distance between the tree and patio.
Thanks for all the advice.

alias no.9

noodler wrote: »

I guess I'd counter with the obvious.

I decide what goes in my garden. I want the patio, I don't want the roots (especially if they are damaging my property).

Where the neighbor decides put his own patio seems immaterial to me to be frank. As long as it was in their own garden.

If they want to put in a patio, it needs a proper base. This includes digging out any roots under the area the patio is being laid.

jimmycrackcorm

Jane98 wrote:

I think the next steps are to establish if the roots really are the issue. The neighbour showed my husband the patio which is lifting in areas but this may be because it was badly laid. We need to lift a couple of slabs to determine what the issue is and measure the exact distance between the tree and patio. Thanks for all the advice.

What evidence did they give in the first place to say the tree is at fault?

magicbastarder

are there any other trees nearby? poplar, for example, has a fierce reputation for root spread.

amen

Jane98 wrote: »

No idea, but I'd say it's prob. 10 + years old. It was built by the previous owners of his house and we weren't living in ours then either.

So was the patio lifting before he purchased the house or after ?

Jane98

amen wrote: »

So was the patio lifting before he purchased the house or after ?

Before

_Brian

I’d trim back the roots, at his expense. Tell him he can do it if he has a trained arborist donit oroperky

Jane98

Jane98 wrote: »

Tree to wall - 1m and wall to patio - 10m

At a distance of 10m it seems a bit unlikely to me that the birch is to blame. This would mean the root diameter is 20m in total...how big is the birch?

Seth Brundle

Actually something occurred to me just now - it might be this...
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057876630&page=1

tDw6u1bj

Contrary to what people are saying, it seems pretty obvious that your tree is your responsibility and you must take action (and incur all of the expense) to remedy any damage caused. The idea even thinking about asking someone else to pay to stop you doing damage to their property seems wild to me. Doesn't matter if it's a patio or a foundation, when either were installed, or if it was installed badly or not(though the latter could conceivably lead to shared costs if you went to court).

That said,

1. as others have said, 10m is very far for it to spread and especially far for it to cause damage.

2. Most people are very poor at judging distance...are you sure it's 10m? That's wider than a lot of properties.

3. If I were in your situation I would want it shown beyond any doubt that it was the roots causing the damage. Specifically I would need to see damaged areas, find the roots, and trace the roots until we know for certain that it's my tree. A little bit of digging should make it obvious quickly.

Seth Brundle

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

Contrary to what people are saying, it seems pretty obvious that your tree is your responsibility and you must take action (and incur all of the expense) to remedy any damage caused. The idea even thinking about asking someone else to pay to stop you doing damage to their property seems wild to me. Doesn't matter if it's a patio or a foundation, when either were installed, or if it was installed badly or not(though the latter could conceivably lead to shared costs if you went to court).

That said,

1. as others have said, 10m is very far for it to spread and especially far for it to cause damage.

2. Most people are very poor at judging distance...are you sure it's 10m? That's wider than a lot of properties.

3. If I were in your situation I would want it shown beyond any doubt that it was the roots causing the damage. Specifically I would need to see damaged areas, find the roots, and trace the roots until we know for certain that it's my tree. A little bit of digging should make it obvious quickly.

Make up your mind!!!
:rolleyes:

tDw6u1bj

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Make up your mind!!!
:rolleyes:

Learn to parse english.

standardg60

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

Learn to parse english.

Hardly a fair response, you did contradict yourself.
I'm with Continental here, neighbour bought a property with an already uneven patio laid ten years before, and suddenly decides to blame neighbour's tree with no evidence whatsoever.

magicbastarder

i think there's an implied 'if' in that response.

tDw6u1bj

standardg60 wrote: »

Hardly a fair response, you did contradict yourself.
I'm with Continental here, neighbour bought a property with an already uneven patio laid ten years before, and suddenly decides to blame neighbour's tree with no evidence whatsoever.

I responded in kind.

I said two things:
1. That the owner of the tree is responsible for any damage caused.
2. That I would make sure that the tree was the cause of the damage.

Where's the contradiction? Where am I not making up my mind?

standardg60

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

I responded in kind.

I said two things:
1. That the owner of the tree is responsible for any damage caused.
2. That I would make sure that the tree was the cause of the damage.

Where's the contradiction? Where am I not making up my mind?

The purpose of the thread was to establish the responsibility, all you've done is post both sides of the argument.

tDw6u1bj

standardg60 wrote: »

The purpose of the thread was to establish the responsibility, all you've done is post both sides of the argument.

...but I didn't?

I said that the owner of the tree is responsible for costs to remedy any damage caused.

The other side of the argument is that the owner of the tree isn't responsible for those cost.

My other points were about establishing if indeed the tree did cause damage, which is a separate issue.

magicbastarder

MyNameIsMyPassword stated that the owner is responsible for damage caused by their tree.
(s)he also stated that it's necessary to determine if the damage *is* actually caused by their tree.

the post does make sense.

tDw6u1bj

magicbastarder wrote: »

MyNameIsMyPassword stated...

HA!

It isn't. But yes, I used a random password generator to get it because I was feeling too lazy to think of a username.

John_Rambo

I had a similar situation a few years ago with a neighbour in a property I owned. A trees roots (that I planted) had affected the integrity of his wall.

He wanted to reconfigure the wall anyway and never asked for money, but significantly, he did show me the (obvious) damage the roots had caused. I asked how much it cost & I gave him half of the cost in cash €900. He sort of half refused out of manners but accepted €400 gracefully!

I sold the property, he moved on too, but we're still in the community and see each other so, money well spent.

Hocus Focus

looksee wrote: »

The first thing to do would be establish whether or not the birch roots are in fact causing any issues. It seems very unlikely that roots 10 m away from the tree, even if they travel that far, would do damage.

According to this article http://subsidencebureau.com/trees-distances/ the maximum distance travelled by birch roots is 10m, so while it is possible it seems a bit unlikely.

A test trench, say three metres from the patio and parallel with the edge of it, would help establish the facts.
If such investigation does reveal that the tree is causing the problem, the the roots can be trimmed back a sufficient distance, as recommended by a qualified arbourist, and a rhizome barrier installed.

Hocus Focus

Jane98 wrote: »

Before

So he bought it in full knowledge that the patio was going to need attention...........

standardg60

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

...but I didn't?

I said that the owner of the tree is responsible for costs to remedy any damage caused.

The other side of the argument is that the owner of the tree isn't responsible for those cost.

My other points were about establishing if indeed the tree did cause damage, which is a separate issue.

Yes you're right, i misread your post, apologies.