In his judgment, Ramsey J. was partially in agreement with both parties. On the legal issue of the relevant standard, he agreed with the Khans that the landowners` law expects them to provide for descent damage that would reasonably be provided for by a landowner who wishes to reasonably end. The judge did not accept that Ms. Kane`s lack of knowledge about the risk of lowering this level could reduce this level, while this knowledge could increase it (so it may be reasonable for a better-informed owner to foresee real estate damage in circumstances more than they would otherwise). Therefore, the test “creates a field, but not a ceiling in knowledge” (at point 42). The characteristic of the lowering is the differential movement, that is, different parts of the building move at different speeds. This is not the case with an establishment, except in cases where the neighbouring house could suffer from subsidence and there is an oak tree nearby on neighbouring land – who must be responsible for the owner to want to take it down? Yes, the letter is a bit strong (written by a lawyer?) like an opening geambit. My first action, if the owner of the tree, was to contact my insurers. Although the wording on the letter seems strong, I think it is a fairly standard formulation, I see it a lot if we receive claims against LA trees, but we decide not to take action, unless the evidence actually provided that generally offer. The result of Khan v Kane is that landowners should be aware that they may be responsible for the damage caused by their trees, even if they do not themselves believe there is a risk, and they should seek the advice of a specialist to determine all the risks. If you have noticed a subsidence that you think is caused by a tree on nearby land, or if you are attached to an apartment on the ground floor if you own upper floors, or if your neighbour claims that it has been lowered by a tree on your property, you should seek the help of a lawyer as soon as possible.
Edition; www.ltoa.org.uk/news/170-seeing-the-wood-for-the-trees seems to go against some of KvK`s results without taking legal action, you can`t force a third party to reduce or remove their trees. However, if you were not prepared to fund a lawsuit, we would expect you to have found another way to stop the movement so that you could repair the damage from the subsidence. Khan v Harrow Council and Kane is not a case that sets a “precedent.” This is a case that has been tried on the evidence. It shows that it is possible to argue successfully for negligence against a tree owner…… But that may not always be possible. First, how should a prudent landlord investigate? What can an owner reasonably do if he grows a tree in a narrow tone? I don`t remember the hand, but I have a reminder from a judge who also says that if the owners remove each tree with the potential to cause subsidence, it would lead to desertification. If the policyholder had previously reported the tree (perhaps noticing that cracks appeared on a garden wall), the insurer may have sent loss takers to check the situation. MacGeagh is facing a demand of more than 9,000 $US, which came when the neighbour of an investment property he rented complained of a crack in one of its walls. The neighbour blamed a mature chestnut tree and other trees near their common fence for damage to his home. To address these situations, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) has published its national grant agreement. If you subscribe to this agreement, you must manage the change in insurance rights: homeowners often find it difficult or expensive to obtain non-life insurance after claiming a right to the reduction. As a general rule, an insurer will advise an arborist on the most appropriate remedy, which may include pollarding (cutting the canopy to the main trunk), topping, thinning or removal.