Neighbours from Hell

supersaver2

poet123 wrote: »

The OP didn't say that incident happened at 1.30am, I took it to be early evening.

She was woken by the child at 1.30am according to her OP.

I agree the new neighbours should have spoken up when their friend spoke to the OP in that way, but being shouted at by someone from a balcony overlooking your garden can't be pleasant either.

You took it to be early evening, how did you make that assumptions! Just because it fits in with painting the OP in the worst light possible by any chance?

Errata

I think the problem is there are two who will be officially classed as vulnerable. The retired adult with health problems and the child with a disability. Which trumps which is a problem which can only be solved with both being in appropriate accommodation.

Nicki

My guess based on the chain of events OP described is that the confrontation happened no later than 8ish. They had to have time for one to get paralytic following the row but for it still to be light enough for OP to identify who was paralytic and who was helping him in. It's a guess though. If the confrontation had happened much later I think Op would have said so as more fuel for how antisocial they were.

poet123

supersaver2 wrote: »

You took it to be early evening, how did you make that assumptions! Just because it fits in with painting the OP in the worst light possible by any chance?

No, rather because I am sure had it been late enough to wake her she would have said so. So, my assumption was based on the fact that she wasn't in bed.

In fact, aside from that one incident the OP hasn't mentioned any issues with the parents, only the issues with noise from the child.

Yet people are focusing on that rather the actuality of what is causing the upset. Is that because it is more palatable by any chance?;)

poet123

Errata wrote: »

I think the problem is there are two who will be officially classed as vulnerable. The retired adult with health problems and the child with a disability. Which trumps which is a problem which can only be solved with both being in appropriate accommodation.

The OP has said she is not elderly. Retired seems a misnomer in that circumstance.

supersaver2

poet123 wrote: »

No, rather because I am sure had it been late enough to wake her she would have said so. So, my assumption was based on the fact that she wasn't in bed.

In fact, aside from that one incident the OP hasn't mentioned any issues with the parents, only the issues with noise from the child.

Yet people are focusing on that rather the actuality of what is causing the upset. Is that because it is more palatable by any chance?;)

No of course not, but in my opinion this was the second night of new neighbours living in the building, they have set the tone having invited guests who are happy to swear at other residents who have lived happily there for many years. This will put the OP on the wrong foot so to speak and I can't blame her for that and to start picking up on all other noises from downstairs. Don't forget that this lady has retired due to I'll health, we don't not what her problems are, yet she has been called selfish and horrible for her problems with this new situation and I think some have been very harsh on her. I have a disabled child, she receives DLA at the highest rate of care so she has many needs but I can still be considerate to my neighbours, pop round and explain if we are causing lots of noise and generally try and be good neighbours. My daughter being disabled doesn't give me the right to infringe on other people in their homes.

Vicky123

People are now turning this thread into something it wasn't about in order to make an intolerant person appear reasonable. The Original Post was about the disabled child and according to the poster, making animal noises, the drunken friend was mentioned only as a one off incident. This thread is not about drunken neighbours it's about someone who finds a disabled childs involuntary noises unbearable and who by her own admission took steps in the hope of ousting them from the flat they live in. If people agree with that then they should say so but not hide behind the tale of a visitor's drunken behavior on their 2nd day in their home to justify it.

supersaver2

Vicky123 wrote: »

People are now turning this thread into something it wasn't about in order to make an intolerant person appear reasonable. The Original Post was about the disabled child and according to the poster, making animal noises, the drunken friend was mentioned only as a one off incident. This thread is not about drunken neighbours it's about someone who finds a disabled childs involuntary noises unbearable and who by her own admission took steps in the hope of ousting them from the flat they live in. If people agree with that then they should say so but not hide behind the tale of a visitor's drunken behavior on their 2nd day in their home to justify it.

No I don't agree with the OP ousting this family. I don't think her finding these noises hard to live with makes her intolerant or unreasonable though. Most people can see both sides, I just don't think the incident on their second night helped matters much.

Nicki

Well said Vicky

The people who have heard this story IRL (the other neighbours and the letting agents) have said that OP is conducting a vendetta and do not support her, even the other neighbours who also hear the noises in question from their flat. Which surely says something?

Nicki

supersaver2 wrote: »

No I don't agree with the OP ousting this family. I don't think her finding these noises hard to live with makes her intolerant or unreasonable though. Most people can see both sides, I just don't think the incident on their second night helped matters much.

But as has been pointed out many times already the child can't help the noises he makes and the parents can't prevent it or as tenants modify their flat in any way to muffle the noise. OP and others don't see why the OP should soundproof her own flat or take any self help steps. So other than the family being moved how does the problem get solved? And what prevents the same thing happening wherever the family is moved to, so they end up with no permanent home?

If you think OP shouldn't have to take any steps to help herself here then the only logical stance is that you think she is right in saying the family should be moved. I can't see what other middle ground there is

Although I suppose the family could guarantee that no adult will make any sound in the garden or house which will carry to OP's flat, including any guest. But as that isn't really OP's problem I don't think that is really what she's after.