Historical lender archive · Japanese knotweed
Historical mortgage lender requirements: japanese knotweed
Lexsure has tracked how mortgage lenders treated japanese knotweed since 2007. Choose the date your transaction completed and the lender concerned to check what was recorded at that point.
For homeowners · the plain explanation
The issue
Why Japanese knotweed mattered to mortgage lenders
Japanese knotweed is a fast-growing invasive plant that spreads underground through a rhizome system. It is difficult to eradicate, it can regrow from small fragments, and it can spread across boundaries from neighbouring land. Depending on its location and extent it may affect hard surfaces, drains, outbuildings or boundary structures, and it can give rise to disputes between neighbours where it has encroached.
For a mortgage lender, the principal significance is the value of the property and its acceptability as security. A lender is lending against the property, so the questions that matter are whether the valuer can value it reliably, whether the infestation has been professionally treated, whether any treatment carries a guarantee that survives a future sale, and whether the property will be saleable if the lender ever has to realise its security.
Those concerns can be reflected in a lender’s published Part 2 requirements in a number of ways, and the archive is the means of establishing which applied to a given lender on a given date. The kinds of requirement a dated record may contain include: whether the lender would lend on an affected property at all; whether a treatment or management plan by a specialist contractor was required; whether a guarantee was required, from whom, for how long, and whether it had to be assignable to a successor in title; whether a retention of part of the advance was required pending completion of treatment; and whether the matter was referred to the valuer. Which of these a particular lender required on a particular date is a question for the record, not an assumption.
Put simply: most people buy with a mortgage, so if a property is acceptable to fewer lenders it may also be available to fewer realistic buyers when it comes to be sold. That is why the position across the wider lending market on a given date can matter, even where your own lender was content to lend at the time.
Why the exact date matters
Today’s Handbook cannot answer a historical question
There are two reasons. The first is structural: the Handbook framework itself changes over time, including its question numbering, its organisation and its jurisdictional versions, so the place where a requirement lives today is not necessarily where it lived on the material date. The second reason matters more: the lender’s own answer may have changed.
Today’s lender policy is only today’s lender policy. Individual mortgage lenders amend their Part 2 requirements over time: introducing a new requirement or removing one, tightening or relaxing an acceptance threshold, moving between acceptance, conditional acceptance and referral, adding or removing an indemnity requirement, changing the title rights or covenants they insist on, or changing what must be reported to them. So the correct question is not “what does this lender say about japanese knotweed?” It is “what did this lender say about japanese knotweed on the date relevant to my transaction?”
The archive records requirements to the day, and a Part 2 record for one transaction date should not be treated as evidence of the requirements applicable to another; each date of interest should be checked independently. In a contested transaction, more than one date may be material, for example exchange of contracts, the issue of the Certificate of Title, or completion, depending on the instruction or conduct being investigated.
Why a simple Handbook search isn’t enough
A lender’s requirements for one issue may appear across several Part 2 answers. Lexsure maps the issue itself across the complete dated lender record, rather than looking up a single question number.
Before you order
What the historical record can, and cannot, tell you
It can tell you
- What your lender’s Part 2 record said on the date you choose, in its own words.
- Whether that record expressly addressed Japanese knotweed on that date, including any treatment, guarantee, retention or referral requirement.
- What other lenders’ records said on the same date, if you order the Market Context Report.
- The archive reference and capture details behind every record shown.
It cannot tell you
- Whether anyone did anything wrong. That is a legal question, on the facts of your transaction.
- What was actually done in your conveyancing, which is a matter for your file.
- What a lender meant by silence: where no express wording is recorded, that is reported as such and is not evidence the lender accepted the position.
- Whether a lender would lend on the property today.
- What the general Part 1 instructions, the mortgage offer conditions or case-specific correspondence said. Part 2 is the lender-specific component of the instruction framework, not the whole of it.
Lexsure change intelligence
Lenders change their own requirements too
Mortgage lenders do not merely differ from one another. Individual lenders have amended their own japanese knotweed requirements over time, which is why a lender’s current policy cannot answer a question about an earlier transaction.
Because every capture in the archive is date- and time-stamped, Lexsure’s records make it possible to identify, for a given lender, when the recorded requirements relevant to this topic changed and what the wording was before and after. A capture timestamp records when Lexsure recorded the wording, which is not the same as the date the changed instruction is verified as applying; the archive holds both, and the applicable date is what a historical answer is given against. That change analysis is forensic work: it distinguishes substantive amendments from formatting, contact-detail and administrative changes, and it is produced within the Tier 3 Market Intelligence Report and Tier 4 expert instruction, for the specific lender, topic and dates under investigation.
What counts as a substantive change in Lexsure’s analysis?
A change is treated as substantive where it affects the practical lender requirement for the topic: express or conditional acceptability, refusal, reporting or referral obligations, lender approval, quantitative thresholds, required title rights or covenants, indemnity requirements, valuation or specialist-evidence requirements, documentation, remediation, or other conditions capable of affecting the lending decision or the conveyancing process.
It does not count spelling corrections, formatting changes, contact-detail or telephone-number changes, administrative amendments unrelated to the topic, or wording changes where no practical requirement changed. Lexsure measures substantive topic change, not simply how many versions of an answer exist.
A note on interpretation: that a lender changed its requirements is evidence that requirements evolved, nothing more. It does not by itself indicate that a lender was more restrictive, less reliable or an outlier, that a property was unmortgageable, or that any conveyancer fell short. The direction and consequence of any particular change require separate analysis.
The wider market
How the wider lender market treated japanese knotweed over time
Mortgageability is a material component of practical marketability. A title characteristic that materially reduces the number of lenders willing to lend may in turn reduce the pool of realistic future purchasers, because mortgage finance is central to a substantial part of the residential property market. It does not follow that a property with a restricted lender pool was defective or unsaleable: it may remain saleable to cash purchasers, or to buyers using lenders that accepted the characteristic.
Individual lender change is one half of the story; the position across the market at a moment in time is the other. Across the lenders represented in the archive, published requirements have varied by lender and moved over time, which is precisely why the requirement applicable to one date is not evidence of the requirement applicable to another.
For a specified date, Lexsure’s contemporaneous records support a market-wide view of published lender requirements. The Market Context Report reproduces each applicable lender’s own recorded wording on this topic as in force on that date, without classification or interpretation. Distribution, outlier and directional trend analysis across the market is forensic work, produced within the Tier 3 Market Intelligence Report and Tier 4 expert instruction.
Get the historical record
Two reports. Two different questions.
Tier 1 · The fact
Lender Snapshot
What did my lender actually require?
One lender. One historical date. Your lender's complete Part 2 record, date-stamped and as in force on the date you choose, retrieved under its archive reference. The historic record, nothing more, nothing less. You receive the complete record whether or not it contains express wording on the issue you are investigating.
Get my historical recordTier 2 · The market
Market Context Report
What did other lenders require on the same date?
Everything in the Lender Snapshot, plus the recorded requirements on your chosen issue of every other lender for which Lexsure holds an applicable record, each as in force on that same specific date. The report displays each lender's own historical wording so you can see whether your lender's position was unusual; it does not classify, grade or interpret it.
Get the Market Context ReportPrices include VAT at 20%. Need something more detailed for an existing dispute or litigation? Professional Services →
Investigating or defending a claim?
Lexsure also provides historical lender analysis for litigation, professional negligence investigations, portfolio reviews and institutional use.
The wording itself
What the Handbook asks, and how lenders answered
Part 1 puts the same question to every lender on the panel. Part 2 is where each lender gives its own answer — and those answers are not alike.
Part 2 · 5.4.4a · answers
Does the lender want to receive environmental or contaminated land reports?
Selected answers from various lenders
- Japanese Knotweed - You will need to advise the Bank if you become aware that there is, may be or has previously been Japanese Knotweed identified on or near the property (within 3m of the boundary) and this is not noted on the valuation. Where Japanese Knotweed has not been identified within the boundaries of the property to be mortgaged to the Bank, but is present on neighbouring land within 3 metres from the boundary, we will rely on the Valuer to assess if there is any impact on the valuation. Where Japanese Knotweed has been identified within the boundaries of the property being mortgaged to the Bank, we can only proceed if any damage to outbuildings, paths and fences is minor. We will rely on the Valuer to assess whether there is any visible damage to structure or outbuildings, or whether it is causing any restrictions to the access of amenity space. If the answer to either of these is yes, a Japanese Knotweed Survey is required and we will require the following: • A Treatment plan which has been fully completed by an appropriately qualified person or company such as an accredited member of an industry recognised trade association such as the Property Care Association and the Invasive Non-Native Specialists Association • A Completion Certificate that confirms the weed has already been fully remediated with a minimum 10 year insurance backed guarantee in place which should commence on the date of completion of treatment • A copy of the treatment plan, completion certificate and guarantee are to be provided to the Valuer for their confirmation that the property is suitable for mortgage security and whether there is any impact on the valuation of the property
- No. The Borrower must feel satisfied that the contents of the Environmental Report meets their requirements and that they are happy to proceed in full knowledge of what is reported. Where there are concerns regarding Japanese Knotweed, we will require a 10 year guarantee that is property specific and transferable.
- Yes, you must carry out contaminated land searches and environmental searches appropriate to the Property, its location and any use or former use of the land on which it is situate. Please place these with title documents. You will need to advise us if you become aware that there is, may be or has previously been Japanese Knotweed identified within the boundary of the property or within 7 metres of the boundary. We will only consider lending once the weed has been eradicated and a completion certificate for the treatment has been issued together with a guarantee for a minimum period of 10 years. The documents will need to be submitted to us for consideration and we will refer to our valuer, who will follow the RICS guidelines to access the risk, before we confirm whether we will be able to proceed.
- Please DO NOT provide: • Results of desktop searches. • Reports that recommend “next steps, “Next Actions” or “further investigation” until recommendations have been followed to their conclusion. Only the results of any invasive or investigative reports should be provided should you deem it necessary to do so following the discovery of a matter which may adversely impact our security. Please Note: The Bank will always require insurance to be readily obtainable on typical terms with no onerous excesses, premiums, restrictions or limitations. If insurance is unduly impacted by environmental or other factors then we should be informed. Specific Environmental/Local Matters: • Japanese Knotweed: o You do not need to advise us if treatment has already commenced / been completed by a qualified party and is or will be covered by a valid, transferable, insurance-backed, 10-year guarantee. • Infrastructure projects: o We only require to be advised where the property may be subject to a compulsory purchase or demolition orders or any forms of compensation. • Coal Mining: o We should only be advised where the report shows an untreated (or treated pre 1950) mine entry or adit within 20 meters of the property. • Mundic: o Reports must be less than 6 years old when referred to the Bank. • Private Water Supply: o A Private Water Supply must have been tested with a statement from a specialist that the supply is potable along with a statement of truth from the property owner that the supply is reliable. • Private Drainage: o We must be advised if it is established the property has private drainage which is not compliant or known to be faulty. • FRA/FRAEW: o Do not provide unsolicited copies of FRA/FRAEW reports. • Radon: o We do not need to be made aware. In respect of all of the above the Bank will always require insurance to be readily obtainable on typical terms with no onerous excesses, premiums, restrictions or limitations. If insurance is unduly impacted by environmental or other factors then we should be informed.
- No, simply advise us of entries revealed in the local authority or other searches relating to contamination which may have an impact on our lending decision. JAPANESE KNOTWEED Where Japanese Knotweed (the “Weed”) has been identified within the boundaries of the property being mortgaged to us, we can only proceed if, prior to Completion of the loan, the Weed is: a) categorised as Category C (pursuant to the relevant RICS guidance in force and as amended from time to time) whereby the Weed is not preventing use of or restricting access to amenity space and any damage to outbuildings, paths and fences is minor; and b) subject to an appropriate management/treatment plan in place before Completion. If the Weed is Category C, you must satisfy yourselves that the Borrower has provided: • a transferable treatment plan issued by an appropriately qualified person or company such as an accredited member of an industry recognised trade association such as the Property Care Association and the Invasive Non-Native Specialists Association (“Qualified Person”). Such plan to be provided to the valuer prior to Completion of the loan for confirmation that the Property is suitable for mortgage security and whether there is any impact on the valuation of the Property; and • a transferable completion certificate issued by a Qualified Person that confirms the weed has already been fully remediated with a minimum 10 year insurance backed guarantee in place which should commence on the date of completion of treatment. If the Weed has been identified as Category D, whereby the Weed is outside the boundary of the Property, we can proceed without a treatment plan. MUNDIC CONCRETE Where the Property has been identified to be constructed from Mundic Concrete, we can only proceed if: a) you confirm it is categorised as Classes A, A/B, A1, A2 or A3 pursuant to the relevant Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ guidance (the “Accepted Categories) RICS Professional Guidance, The Mundic Problem (3rd Edition) and b) the Valuer has seen a copy of the relevant Mundic report acceptable to us and confirms the value of the Property is not affected with such identification and no threat is posed to our security. In those circumstances, you must satisfy yourselves that, prior to Completion of the loan, the Borrower has provided to us and yourselves: EITHER a Mundic Concrete report for the relevant Accepted Category in respect of the Property, issued by a qualified RICS Building Surveyor (the “Surveyor”) which is addressed to the Borrower, noting our interest and benefitting successors in title including mortgagees (the “Mundic Report”); OR - If an existing Mundic report for the relevant Accepted Category is dated after 1 January 1997 - an assignment to the Borrower (including mortgagees and successors in title) of such report by the same issuing Surveyor; OR - If the Mundic report predates 1 January 1997 or it is dated after 1 January 1997 but cannot be assigned by the same original Surveyor - a new Mundic Report. TOGETHER WITH all supporting documents (including any existing or assigned Mundic report) to the Valuer to ensure the Property is suitable for mortgage security and there is no impact on the valuation. For the avoidance of doubt, we will not accept any of the following Mundic Concrete categories: B or C.
A curated sample, shown to illustrate how widely lenders’ answers differ on this one question. Lenders are not named, and these answers are not tied to any particular date: a lender may have given a different answer before or after the version sampled here. To establish what a named lender required on a specific date, order the record for that lender and date — that is what the archive is for.
Coverage
Is my lender in the archive?
169 mortgage lenders are represented across the archive since 2007, including lenders that have merged, withdrawn or ceased lending. Archive coverage is lender-specific and is shown for each lender individually; coverage in the earliest part of the archive period varies by lender. Archive coverage means Lexsure holds that lender’s dated Part 2 record for the period shown; whether a lender expressed a position on japanese knotweed on a given date is established by the extraction itself.
| Lender | Archive coverage | Jurisdictions | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) | 2008 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| HSBC Bank plc | 2007 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| Santander | 2012 — present | E&W · NI · SCO · IOM | Check record |
| Barclays Bank | 2012 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| Nationwide Building Society | 2008 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| Lloyds Bank | 2008 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| Halifax | 2008 — present | E&W · NI · SCO · IOM | Check record |
| Leeds Building Society | 2012 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
Showing 8 of 169 historical and current lenders.
View all lendersFAQ
Frequently asked questions: japanese knotweed & historical lender requirements
My lender lent on a property with Japanese knotweed, but my buyer’s lender is refusing. How can that be?
Two things can differ between the two transactions, and both should be checked before the discrepancy is put down to lender policy.
First, the circumstances may not be comparable. The extent of the knotweed, the treatment status, the guarantee position and the valuer’s assessment may all have changed since you bought, so a different outcome is not necessarily a different requirement.
Second, requirements themselves are date-specific and have never been uniform across the market. The fact that your own lender was prepared to lend on your completion date does not mean the wider market would have accepted the property then, or accepts it now.
Against that, two separate questions arise from your own transaction: what did your lender’s written Part 2 instructions require on the day, and what should you reasonably have been told about the knotweed, any treatment or guarantee, and the implications for a future sale? The archive retrieves the date-stamped record actually in force, so both can be examined from the historical record rather than reconstructed from today’s rules.
Does an insurance-backed guarantee satisfy every lender?
Not necessarily, and it should not be assumed. A lender’s published requirements may address who a guarantee must be provided by, how long it must run, whether it must be assignable to a successor in title, and whether a guarantee is accepted at all or only alongside a treatment plan, a retention or a valuer’s referral. Those terms differ between lenders and can change over time. Whether a particular guarantee met a particular lender’s published requirements on a particular date is a question the dated record can be checked against, rather than one that can be answered generally.
How does the CQS protocol affect a Japanese knotweed conveyancing investigation?
Where the conveyancer also acted for the mortgage lender, they had professional obligations to both clients. The Law Society Conveyancing Protocol, which CQS-accredited firms follow, assumes the conveyancer acts for the lender as well as the buyer, and the CQS Core Practice Management Standards require accredited firms to maintain documented procedures for acting for lenders. Compliance with lender instructions forms part of the professional obligations arising from the retainer and should be capable of being evidenced from the file. The lender’s written instructions and the advice owed to the buyer therefore create separate but related lines of enquiry, and both are assessed against the requirements in force on the material date, not against today’s Handbook.
What if my lender’s Part 2 record does not mention Japanese knotweed at all?
You receive the complete Part 2 record as in force on your chosen date whether or not it contains express wording on this topic. If it does not, the record evidences that too: what the lender’s published Part 2 instructions did and did not expressly address on that date. That is only provable from the complete record, which is why the report is not filtered to a topic. Requirements relevant to knotweed may also appear indirectly, through valuation, retention or general condition provisions rather than under a named heading.
Part 2 is the lender-specific component of the instruction framework. A transaction investigation must also consider the general Part 1 instructions applicable at the time, the mortgage offer and its conditions, and any case-specific correspondence. The report establishes what the retained Part 2 record contains; it is not the complete instruction file.
Where no express topic wording is identified, that should not be treated as establishing that the lender accepted the circumstance without restriction.
In the Market Context Report, what if some lenders have no wording on Japanese knotweed?
The Market Context Report reproduces, for the single date you specify, the recorded requirements on this topic of every other lender for which Lexsure holds an applicable record. Some of those lenders will have expressly addressed Japanese knotweed on that date; others will not, and for some lenders no applicable record exists for that date. The report shows each lender’s own recorded wording as it stood; it does not classify, grade or interpret it, and where no express wording is identified that is reported as such. Assessing what the contemporaneous market position means for a particular transaction is analysis, and is undertaken within the Tier 3 and Tier 4 reports.
Have mortgage lenders changed their Japanese knotweed requirements over time?
Yes. Individual lenders amend their Part 2 requirements over time: treatment and guarantee requirements are introduced or withdrawn, guarantee periods and assignability terms change, referral or retention requirements are added or removed, and the point at which a valuer’s comment triggers a condition moves. Professional valuation guidance on knotweed also developed across the archive period, and whether, when and in which direction any individual lender’s requirements moved is established from that lender’s dated record. Lexsure’s date-stamped historical records identify substantive topic-level changes for the lenders represented in the archive, which is why a lender’s current published policy is not evidence of what it required on an earlier transaction date. The frequency of change shows only that requirements evolved; the direction and consequence of any particular change require separate analysis.
Other issues
Other lender requirements we hold
Ready to check a specific date?
Check the archive, or get your historical record for a specific lender and date.