Question 1

JAPANESE KNOTWEED

Accepted Answer

Q: We have just made the horrifying discovery that we have a small amount of Japanese Knotweed (JK) in our grounds. We hear that it is rife along railway embankments in the Bromley/S E London area and, although we understand that it spreads laterally under ground through its rhizomes and not through seeds, somehow a small patch of about 2-3 square metres has taken root next to our block of garages. We have done a considerable amount of research on how to treat it. It seems that it may respond to strong weed killer if applied in the growing season either by a spray method or injection of individual stems. The alternative of digging it out is prohibitively expensive due to the depth of excavation needed. Although we are used to doing our own gardening (we do not live at the block) our reading of the cautionary advice about the handling and disposal of JK suggests that it is serious enough to warrant professional treatment. Unfortunately, we have not been able to identify any local horticultural companies offering to deal with the problem. Going further afield into Kent and Sussex, we have identified four companies who advertise that they are experts in dealing with JK. There is a considerable difference in the costs of treatment offered. They range from a professional weed treatment company who will simply come and apply weed killer (by spray or injection) for approx £250. There are no guarantees that the JK will not return next year and need the same treatment again. We understand that JK can take approximately three years of repeated treatments to eradicate it. Other companies will take a more systematic approach by offering an initial survey, a five-year plan of treatment and a written guarantee that the ground will be free of JK for five years. Costs range from £1,200 (without any guarantee) to just over £2,000 (no reduction for our very small infestation) if an insurance-backed guarantee is required. Another company quoted a massive £3,900 - £5,400 for a survey and treatment with a five-year Lloyds-backed guarantee. Our inclination is to start with the cheapest company and hope that the treatment may eradicate the JK. If not, we would be in for another £250 next year and, possibly even the year after. Adopting the more expensive approach would increase our annual service charge to unacceptable levels for many of our nine residents (three of whom are between 88 and 94 years old and on low incomes) by adding at least £500 to it. I get the impression that this more expensive solution is not necessarily good value for money – it is aimed at infestations of 50 sq m and certainly takes no account of the fact that our infestation covers only a tiny area. Treatment of the JK is urgent as it grows at an alarming rate and we must take action quickly to eradicate it. We are concerned that, if any one of our nine lessees sells their flat, we are likely to be asked (in the purchaser’s enquiries) a specific question about the presence of JK on “The Estate” and if it is present, what treatment or guarantees have we obtained. One company we contacted makes clear that any failure to answer correctly the question on the Law Society Property Information Form TA6 (3^rd edition) would render the author guilty of misrepresentation and make them responsible for “all damage up to the point of sale and also liable for this historic damage after the sale of the property”. It is not our intention to answer with anything but the correct information but we wonder whether, if we, as the two directors of the freehold company, do not obtain a guarantee that JK has been eradicated, could we be held to be negligent if our response to enquiries reveals that fact and then holds up or even causes the sale of a flat to be aborted? Whilst we realise that you are not in a position to recommend any particular company for the eradication of JK, if you feel able to mention any you are aware of we should be most grateful. FPRA Chairman Bob Smytherman replies: I respond from a practical point of view. This is now a standard question on the LPE1 forms for prospective purchasers to ask as the consequences of having JK on site can be potentially very serious to the health of people coming in to contact. I can't claim to be an expert on the subject but my practical advice would in the first instance contact your local council who will probably have experts who have dealt with this if they have parks and allotments. You should also seek advice from the Environment Agency who should be able to provide you with a measured means to deal with the removal that will also prevent a reoccurrence. I am concerned that the contractors are offering such a difference in cost to provide a solution. My concern with opting for the 'cheapest' first is this might not be the longest term solution to eradicate the JK which must be the desired outcome. [Submitted June 2016]

Question 2

JAPANESE KNOTWEED

Accepted Answer

Q: We have just made the horrifying discovery that we have a small amount of Japanese Knotweed (JK) in our grounds. We hear that it is rife along railway embankments in the Bromley/S E London area and, although we understand that it spreads laterally under ground through its rhizomes and not through seeds, somehow a small patch of about 2-3 square metres has taken root next to our block of garages. We have done a considerable amount of research on how to treat it. It seems that it may respond to strong weed killer if applied in the growing season either by a spray method or injection of individual stems. The alternative of digging it out is prohibitively expensive due to the depth of excavation needed. Although we are used to doing our own gardening (we do not live at the block) our reading of the cautionary advice about the handling and disposal of JK suggests that it is serious enough to warrant professional treatment. Unfortunately, we have not been able to identify any local horticultural companies offering to deal with the problem. Going further afield into Kent and Sussex, we have identified four companies who advertise that they are experts in dealing with JK. There is a considerable difference in the costs of treatment offered. They range from a professional weed treatment company who will simply come and apply weed killer (by spray or injection) for approx £250. There are no guarantees that the JK will not return next year and need the same treatment again. We understand that JK can take approximately three years of repeated treatments to eradicate it. Other companies will take a more systematic approach by offering an initial survey, a five-year plan of treatment and a written guarantee that the ground will be free of JK for five years. Costs range from £1,200 (without any guarantee) to just over £2,000 (no reduction for our very small infestation) if an insurance-backed guarantee is required. Another company quoted a massive £3,900 - £5,400 for a survey and treatment with a five-year Lloyds-backed guarantee. Our inclination is to start with the cheapest company and hope that the treatment may eradicate the JK. If not, we would be in for another £250 next year and, possibly even the year after. Adopting the more expensive approach would increase our annual service charge to unacceptable levels for many of our nine residents (three of whom are between 88 and 94 years old and on low incomes) by adding at least £500 to it. I get the impression that this more expensive solution is not necessarily good value for money – it is aimed at infestations of 50 sq m and certainly takes no account of the fact that our infestation covers only a tiny area. Treatment of the JK is urgent as it grows at an alarming rate and we must take action quickly to eradicate it. We are concerned that, if any one of our nine lessees sells their flat, we are likely to be asked (in the purchaser’s enquiries) a specific question about the presence of JK on “The Estate” and if it is present, what treatment or guarantees have we obtained. One company we contacted makes clear that any failure to answer correctly the question on the Law Society Property Information Form TA6 (3^rd edition) would render the author guilty of misrepresentation and make them responsible for “all damage up to the point of sale and also liable for this historic damage after the sale of the property”. It is not our intention to answer with anything but the correct information but we wonder whether, if we, as the two directors of the freehold company, do not obtain a guarantee that JK has been eradicated, could we be held to be negligent if our response to enquiries reveals that fact and then holds up or even causes the sale of a flat to be aborted? Whilst we realise that you are not in a position to recommend any particular company for the eradication of JK, if you feel able to mention any you are aware of we should be most grateful. FPRA Chairman Bob Smytherman replies: I respond from a practical point of view. This is now a standard question on the LPE1 forms for prospective purchasers to ask as the consequences of having JK on site can be potentially very serious to the health of people coming in to contact. I can't claim to be an expert on the subject but my practical advice would in the first instance contact your local council who will probably have experts who have dealt with this if they have parks and allotments. You should also seek advice from the Environment Agency who should be able to provide you with a measured means to deal with the removal that will also prevent a reoccurrence. I am concerned that the contractors are offering such a difference in cost to provide a solution. My concern with opting for the 'cheapest' first is this might not be the longest term solution to eradicate the JK which must be the desired outcome. [Submitted June 2016]

JAPANESE KNOTWEED

Search

Articles Archive