The subsidence market is under significant strain following the warmest spring on record in 2025, with temperatures well above seasonal averages and prolonged dry spells creating ideal conditions for clay soil shrinkage and ground movement. According to the Association of British Insurers subsidence‑related claims reached £153 million in the first half of the year, affecting almost 9,000 households with average payouts increasing to £17,264.
What’s driving the rise in costs?
Extreme weather and climate change
Spring 2025 saw sunshine hours 43% above average and rainfall 40% below normal, significantly accelerating soil desiccation and the resulting structural movement. These emerging “surge summers” are contributing to a long‑term trend of more frequent and more severe subsidence events.
Legal position
Current case law has narrowed recovery prospects making it increasingly challenging to hold local authorities liable in tree‑related subsidence claims. This has placed greater emphasis on early evidence gathering to support tree removal or push liability onto a third party due to foreseeable damage.
Delays in the claims process
A combination of factors is contributing to extended claim durations, including;
- Lengthy site investigations
- Multiple potential causation issues
- Protracted dialogue with third‑party tree owners
- Local authority consultation requirements under the Duty to Consult
- Ongoing liability disputes
These delays lead to longer lifecycles, increased costs and dissatisfied policyholders. The long‑awaited revised Joint Mitigation Protocol, which aims to standardise approaches between insurers and local authorities, remains un-finalised leaving insurers dependent on bespoke negotiation with individual councils.
What this means for insurers and how to respond
Longer consultation timelines, extended investigations and prolonged local‑authority discussions mean policyholders are waiting longer for resolutions. This is driving higher complaint escalation and increasing referrals to the Financial Ombudsman Service when cases exceed expected timeframes.
To mitigate these pressures, insurers should consider:
Building specialist subsidence teams
Dedicated expertise in tree‑related liability, evidence requirements and third‑party obligations can significantly accelerate decision‑making, result in prompt tree removal and improve recovery prospects.
Strengthening evidence early
Gathering strong site data as early as possible including level monitoring, soil samples and root analysis is vital in supporting causation assessments and speeding up negotiations.
Engaging early with third parties
Proactive dialogue with local authorities and neighbouring landowners can reduce delays, narrow disputes and support earlier mitigation.
Managing policyholder expectations
Clear communication is essential. Explaining the subsidence process, likely timescales, the impact of local‑authority consultation and the potential for unavoidable delays helps reduce dissatisfaction and improves customer outcomes.
As solicitors specialising in subsidence and tree‑related liability, we can help insurers navigate these pressures by providing early input into how to strengthen causation assessments and improve mitigation and recovery prospects. We can engage directly with local authorities and third‑party landowners to accelerate the mitigation process and assist with any TPO and conservation applications to reduce delays and claim lifecycles. Our team can review historic matters and draft clear communications to policyholders and third parties to reduce complaints, manage expectations and move these claims to resolution. This proactive legal involvement helps insurers resolve claims more efficiently, reduce cost inflation and deliver better customer outcomes.
