When David Pragasam and his wife first laid eyes on their future home, it was the majestic tree at the front of the house that captivated them.
They wanted to bring their children up in a street filled with foliage, and this house in Hackett was everything they wanted.
But five years down the track, the tree - or, more specifically, its roots - has cost them thousands of dollars and years of anxiety.
When the house began to show signs of severe cracking, they applied to the ACT government to have the tree removed.
That was in August 2024.
Two years, multiple engineering reports and four rejections later, the Conservator of Flora and Fauna, part of the ACT City and Environment Directorate, has determined that the tree, which stands less than two metres from the front of the house, is too healthy and important to the city's urban forest to be removed.
This is despite several engineering reports and a hydrovac and root mapping report all concluding the tree's roots are causing the damage to the house.
The Pragasams are now facing the prospect of remortgaging the house and appealing the decision through the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, a process that will cost many more thousands of dollars and possibly take months or even years to reach a resolution.
Mr Pragasam recalls leaning against the huge trunk of the 20-metre high gum while bidding for the Hackett house at auction five years ago.
After the couple moved in with their two children, he said they invested about $4000 in ensuring the health of the tree, engaging a qualified arborist to remove decades' worth of ivy from the trunk.
But when the 1960s-era house started showing signs of damage, it quickly became clear the tree was the problem.
They lodged a case to have it removed, and at the request of the conservator Bren Burkevics, they commissioned an engineer to determine the cause of the cracking on the exterior walls and internal walls and floor of the home.
This report, as well as the subsequent reports they provided at the conservator's request, concluded the tree's roots were causing damage to the house.
But each report has been rejected, with separate reports from the conservator, advised by a Tree Advisory Panel, saying there wasn't enough evidence it was definitively the tree causing the damage.
Mr Pragasam said he had wondered more than once whether the ACT government policy of increasing the territory's tree canopy meant a default position of never cutting down a tree for any reason.
But an ACT government spokesperson said this wasn't the case, nor were there concerns of creating a precedent.
"The ACT government does not apply a blanket policy that protected trees should never be removed. Each application is assessed on its individual merits against the requirements of the Urban Forest Act 2023 and the Urban Forest (Approval Criteria) Determination 2025 (No 1)," they said.
While they wouldn't comment specifically on the Pragasam's case, the spokesperson insisted the conservator's role "is not to consider potential precedents but to make lawful, evidence-based decisions in accordance with the legislation and the specific circumstances of each application".
Mr Pragasam said when he first lodged an application, the guidelines for requesting tree removal weren't explicit. He simply produced whatever evidence was required, only to have the evidence repeatedly rejected.
At one point, Mr Pragasam received an email from the Tree Protection Unit suggesting that he look into pruning the tree's roots.
"Is this something you can consider and consult with your arborist about and provide an email addressing this prior to a decision being issued?" the email said.
Mr Pragasam said this suggestion was swiftly struck down by the arborist he was consulting, who pointed out that the tree was growing too close to the house for this to be safe.
"What's ironic is their treatment of us is like climate science deniers, where you provide so much evidence, and they say, 'What if? What about? What's this?'," Mr Pragasam said.
"The whole onus of the legislation, and the way that they're acting is that you have to prove, you have to pay. There are a number of reports we've had to do twice because of their ineptness and their lack of understanding."
The government spokesperson said the act was currently being reviewed "to ensure the framework remains clear, efficient and consistent with related planning processes, while continuing to protect Canberra's urban forest".
But in the meantime, Mr Burkevic's final decision was based on a report, which has been seen by The Canberra Times, from engineer consultant Linden Coot, who carried out a desktop assessment of the report provided by Mr Pragasam.
His report outlines other possible reasons for the cracking, and even suggests the hydrovac process, where high pressure water is used to break up soil, could cause further damage.
Mr Pragasam said this process, which alone cost him $3495, had been undertaken at the conservator's request after their third rejection in May 2025.
Meanwhile, he said while the case has dragged on, the cracks have grown, and the potential cost of repairs has steadily risen.
"There seems to be no holding to account. There's no responsibility. There's no initiative to actually get us a reason why, and this is a challenge," he said.
But one of the things he finds most upsetting is the number of people - friends, acquaintances - who have suggested he simply cut the tree down himself, or poison it.
"It's actually very labour-intensive to cut down a tree, and not only that, it's against the law - there's an $80,000 fine," he said.
"We're model citizens. We have followed their process, and their process has let us down."
For this, they have been informed they can "lodge a new application at any time and provide any additional information that has not previously been considered. Separately, a person may wish to discuss their circumstance with the ACT Ombudsman."
The Pragasams have other options, of course. They could spend upwards of $80,000 - and counting, as the quotes keep rising - to fix the damage to the front of the house - a temporary measure because the tree will simply keep on growing.
They could sell the house at a vastly reduced price, and start again somewhere else, leaving the problem to the next owner.
Or they could tear down the house altogether and rebuild, something they're not emotionally, financially or ethically inclined to do.
Instead, they've chosen to fight on.
Mr Pragasam says he and his wife - he's a senior commercial accountant - work in the upper levels in their fields and are used to dealing with bureaucracy.
"We deal with a lot in our professional lives, so we can cope with that," he said.
"But if you're just a normal person who works hard and doesn't challenge authority, you can't present a good defence.
"What really concerned us is when we were having the conversation with the conservator, the director of the Tree Protection Unit, and another officer from the conservator's office, the conservator actually said, 'Well, what will you do? What are your next steps?
"Right then, it became the difference between an evaluation, to how they're going to defend it in ACAT.
"They're relying on your goodwill, and when you actually know your legal rights and what they shouldn't be asking, then they do a dummy spit."
