A homeowner applies to remortgage. The surveyor identifies Japanese knotweed about ten metres from the house and the lender refuses the application.
That situation raises an obvious question: can Japanese knotweed some distance from the building really prevent a remortgage?
The short answer is that it can affect the application, but distance alone should not decide the outcome. The location of the plant, the land on which it is growing, any effect on the property and the evidence available to the valuer and lender may all be important.
Did Japanese knotweed emerge after you bought?
When I Bought explains the questions to ask if knotweed is now affecting your sale, mortgage or remortgage, including what was known and reported when you purchased.
Why a surveyor may report knotweed away from the house
A mortgage valuation is undertaken for the lender. The valuer is considering whether the property provides acceptable security, not merely whether the plant is touching the building.
Knotweed may be growing within the property boundary, on neighbouring land or in a nearby communal area. Its relevance can depend upon matters such as:
- whether the identification has been professionally confirmed;
- whether it is within the property or beyond its boundary;
- whether it is affecting structures, drains, paths, boundaries or usable garden space;
- whether it restricts the use or enjoyment of the property;
- whether there is evidence of spread;
- whether a specialist management plan is in place; and
- whether any guarantee is transferable and acceptable to the lender.
RICS guidance moved professional assessment away from treating proximity as the only issue. Its risk-based approach asks valuers to consider the plant’s actual effect on the property and the appropriate management response.
Does the old seven metre rule still apply?
References to a seven metre rule still appear in old reports, lender instructions and online discussions. It was historically influential, but it should not be confused with a universal rule under which knotweed outside seven metres becomes irrelevant.
A plant said to be ten metres from the house might still be inside the property’s boundary. It might affect an outbuilding, path, wall or usable garden space. Alternatively, it might be on neighbouring land with no material effect on the property. Those are very different cases even though the distance from the main building could be identical.
Why one lender may decline while another asks for further evidence
Mortgage lenders do not necessarily apply identical requirements. The valuer’s report may also prompt the lender to request more information rather than make an immediate final decision.
Depending on the circumstances, the missing evidence might include:
- a specialist inspection confirming whether the plant is Japanese knotweed;
- a plan showing its position relative to the property and relevant structures;
- a professional treatment or management plan;
- evidence of completed treatment and monitoring; or
- an insurance-backed guarantee capable of benefiting successors and a mortgagee.
A refusal should therefore be examined carefully. The homeowner needs to establish whether the lender has made a final decision, whether the valuer requires further evidence and precisely what feature of the infestation caused concern.
What should the homeowner do next?
- Obtain the relevant wording. Ask the broker or lender to explain the valuation condition or reason for refusal in writing.
- Confirm the identification. Do not assume that every bamboo-like plant is Japanese knotweed.
- Establish the location. Determine whether it is within the title boundary, on neighbouring land or in a communal area.
- Commission appropriate specialist evidence. The report should address the plant’s extent, its effect on the property and the recommended management response.
- Check existing documents. Look for previous surveys, treatment plans, guarantees, property forms and correspondence supplied when the property was bought.
- Ask what would satisfy the lender. Paying for treatment without first understanding the lender’s concern may not resolve the application.
Homeowners should also take care before cutting, excavating or transporting suspected knotweed. Government guidance explains the controls intended to prevent it from spreading.
Why the papers from the original purchase matter
If the plant was present, treated or disclosed when the homeowner bought, the original conveyancing file may show:
- what the seller stated about knotweed;
- what the survey or valuation recorded;
- whether the conveyancer reported the issue;
- what the mortgage lender required at that time;
- whether a treatment plan or guarantee was supplied; and
- what the buyer was told about future saleability and mortgageability.
The fact that a mortgage was granted previously does not prove that knotweed was absent or that every future lender must accept the property. The physical circumstances, valuation evidence and lender requirements may all have changed.
Our recent article, Japanese Knotweed and the Evolving Mortgage Landscape, explains why the requirements applying on the original completion date may be important.
Check what the lender required at the time
The Lexsure Lender Archive Japanese knotweed page records historical mortgage-lender requirements. This can assist where knotweed is now obstructing a sale or remortgage and the owner needs to understand what their original lender required when they bought.
An archive record cannot decide whether a professional duty was breached. It can, however, help establish the lender-instruction background against which the original transaction should be examined.
The practical lesson
Japanese knotweed reported ten metres from a house should not automatically be dismissed, but neither does that measurement alone explain why a remortgage has failed.
The useful questions are: where exactly is the plant, what effect does it have, what evidence is available, what does the valuer require and what is the particular lender prepared to accept?
If the problem was already present when the property was bought, there is another question: what should the owner have been told about it at the time?
This article provides general information and is not legal, surveying, environmental or mortgage advice. Requirements and individual lending decisions vary.