After struggling for some time to claim from the City, Glen van der Westhuizen would like to warn other residents to check their properties.

He says he first noticed the damage to his property in mid-March of this year.

At that stage the roots had forced their way under his boundary wall, causing cracks from top to bottom.

They had also spread across the lawn and uplifted the concrete slabs around his house, as well as the rainwater run-off furrows., This resulted in water damming on his property. The tarred driveway is also showing signs of cracking and buldging.

After a few phonecalls to the muncipality, Van der Westhuizen wrote a letter to the council outlining the damage and inviting them to come and see for themselves. He also expressed his concern for the damage caused by the same tree roots to the pavements.

About a week after this letter, muncipal workers arrived to excevate the roots on the pavement, but they informed Van der Westhuizen that it is their policy not to work on private property.

Photos were taken on the property though, to submit a report for Van der Westhuizen’s claim.

The exposed roots on the muncipal property were removed, but the surface has yet to be retarred.

The City Parks Department planted a bio-barrier along Van der Westhizen’s boundary wall. The barrier is a poisonous strip, that prevents the roots from growing past it.

Van der Westhuizen says he is worried that with the tree only being grounded on one side (towards the road) there is a possibly that it could fall over in a storm.

After council staff had completed their investigation, Van der Westhuizen was informed that the damage to his property would have been evident three years prior to the date that he reported the damage.

In terms of the relevant act Van der Westhuizen’s claim was too late and the problem should have been reported three years ago.

Van der Westhuizen says that it is important for home owners to keep an eye on their property so that they can report problems as soon as possible and avoid a situation such as his.

He was also informed that in terms of Section 5 of the Administrative Justice Act members of the public have the right to request written reasons for any decision made by council within 90 days, should they not be satisfied with the decision.

Van der Westhuizen invoked this right in a formal letter to the City on the 31 July and is still awaiting a response.

He is concerned that he has seen no kind of specialist report on the matter and was told that such a report must be obtained at his own expense.

The cost of repairing his boundary wall and the drainage and then removing the roots from his garden would amount to R13 200, which Van der Westhuizen’s insurance company will not cover as they do not cover liabilties of an external nature.

“On a technicallity, the muncipality are turning their backs on me,” says Van der Westhuizen. “At the end of the day it’s their tree,” he adds.

Chris Gertze, Head of the City’s Claims Services, says upon visiting the site in September, city officials pointed out to Van der Wethuizen that the the roots were visible on the surface of his lawn and that he must, therefore have noticed this. Gertze says that Van der Westhuizen acknowledged this, but said that he did not realise how serious it was before he excavated.

A letter sent to Van der Westhuizen on 17 September did outline the City’s reasons for not accepting the claim, but Van der Westhuizen had asked for an explanation.