Mitigation in what is shaping up to be an event year for subsidence claims

The first event year, and one of the most notable in UK weather history, was in 1976 when the UK experienced a severe and prolonged heatwave and drought. There have been various surge event years since including 2003, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2018 and 2022 in which insurers reported a marked increase in subsidence claims.

The year of 2023 saw a summer of mixed conditions and was wetter than average[1] while 2024 was reported to be the coolest summer since 2015 with average rainfall[2].

Fast forward to 2025 and there have already been three heatwaves declared. Spring was the warmest and sunniest on record for the UK[3]. As we move into summer, June continues the trend with England recording the warmest June on record and the second warmest for the UK[4]. June 2025 has been warmer than June 1976.

By the end of June, soil moisture deficits continued to increase across most of England with soils remaining near maximum deficits.[5] The drying of the soil causes the soils to shrink, particularly where trees are present as their roots extract moisture from the soil.

Many regions in England are already affected by drought with restrictions on water use, and further parts of England are at risk if dry weather continues. The dry conditions and water scarcity could cause an increasing number of properties to be at risk of ground movement and severe damage leading to a significant increase in insurance subsidence claims for those properties unfortunate enough to suffer damage because of desiccated clay soils.

If the dry weather continues throughout the summer, as is expected, and the drought continues, then we envisage 2025 will be a high-risk year for insurers who are likely to see a surge of subsidence claims.

With an increase of subsidence claims comes an increase in property insurers requesting tree removal to mitigate and abate the nuisance of vegetation-induced subsidence claims so as to avoid costly sub-structure works, such as underpinning or the installation of root barriers.

The increase in subsidence claims and the consequent increase in requests for tree removal in order to prevent ongoing subsidence damage will lead to a greater tension between tree owners, particularly local authority tree owners, and property insurers.

For tree owners, there will be an understandable reluctance to remove implicated trees, especially trees of high amenity value. There have been some high-profile cases recently where tree owners and communities have worked together to prevent high amenity value trees from being removed. This is likely to increase.

Local Authorities in England who are asked to remove certain street trees[6] have a Section 115[7] Duty to Consult with local individuals who may be affected by a proposed tree’s removal before they can even consider whether or not to remove implicated trees. The Duty to Consult is likely to lead to more objections from the public to removal of street trees which the local authority will need to take into consideration in their decision-making process. This will inevitably lead to longer delays in removal of some local authority street trees or the necessary consideration of alternative engineering and tree management solutions.

Although a local authority can still decide to fell a street tree if required, they should give consideration and weight as they see fit to all representations and views made by respondents to the consultation and will need to ensure they have time to incorporate a decision to fell in their contracting schedule. The time to ensure respondents are made aware of the decision before felling takes place and to provide opportunities to complain about the decision will add further to this delay.

We are, therefore, likely to be faced with more disputes between tree owners who wish to keep their trees, and property insurers who will be keen to have implicated trees removed so that repairs can be undertaken without the need for costly underpinning or root barrier installation.

Only by working together in a collaborative and transparent way can tree owners and property insurers seek to minimise the number of disputes which are likely to arise. Early dialogue and provision of suitable evidence is essential together with a willingness, on both sides, to think “outside the box” when it comes to alternatives to tree removal.

Clyde & Co’s Property and Liability team is able to assist the parties in navigating the challenges of mitigation in subsidence claims. If you would like to find out more please contact Philip Adamis (Partner, London), Nicholas Bathurst (Partner, Guildford), Catherine Mangham (Legal Director, Manchester) or Shona Casey (Associate, Liverpool).