Bad neighbour sabotages house sale

catshark88

TheTalkingDead wrote: »

Response in bold. Whilst entertaining and satisfying has repercussions and backfire.


If the OP has the evidence currently would certainly go down the civil court's procedure's rout and obtain an order telling her she has to curb her activities, breaching the order could result in a more serious charge against her.


Kill them with silence I say, don't talk, stay within the laws, don't do nothing to provoke, or exact revenge, just go about daily life, and if she is persistent in reporting you for offences that are made up then the order is there for it to be acted upon.

Spoilsport. :rotfl::rotfl:

Comms69

Just to be clear GDPR, DPA and Article 8 wouldn't apply in the case of domestic use of cameras.


Just thought I'd make that, very obvious, point.


As for this:
It would probably be dealt with by either or by both high court and or county court by district judge not a magistrate bench, - You're suggesting that the civil courts would deal with criminal law?... baffled


as such the council or neighbour would most likely seek a abatement, injunction or Behaviour contract or order, nothing to do with the magistrates as like I said there would be no arrests and I don't think I mentioned it either as a possibility. - You seem to think that going to a magistrates court requires an arrest. It doesn't. EVERY criminal case in England and Wales starts in the magistrates court. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

TheTalkingDead

Comms69 wrote: »

Just to be clear GDPR, DPA and Article 8 wouldn't apply in the case of domestic use of cameras.


Just thought I'd make that, very obvious, point.


As for this:
It would probably be dealt with by either or by both high court and or county court by district judge not a magistrate bench, - You're suggesting that the civil courts would deal with criminal law?... baffled


as such the council or neighbour would most likely seek a abatement, injunction or Behaviour contract or order, nothing to do with the magistrates as like I said there would be no arrests and I don't think I mentioned it either as a possibility. - You seem to think that going to a magistrates court requires an arrest. It doesn't. EVERY criminal case in England and Wales starts in the magistrates court. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

No sir! JUST SO WERE CLEAR! Case law already establishes that Household limited CCTV systems CAN fall into what is now DPA 2018 section 36.


Here's the case law:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=170012&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=13603939



Here's more case law:Bernstein v Skyviews
& General Ltd [1978] 1 QB 479, Please pay attention to the judges remarks in page 489.


Heres the ICO guidance that encapsulates this case law into GDPR DPA2018.
ICO makes this point clear in section 3 of its published CCTV guidance and code of practice.
https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

Here in contains how the Harassment act 97 would apply.
This Could be dealt with by the magistrates, if the authority wanted to, highly unlikely though.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01803


Link at bottom of this page.

As for my bold, your red, re read my reply to trevormax pay particular attention to his last sentence, unfortunately you have taken me out of context to a rather flawed advice offered by this poster. Again CIVIL REMEDIES AKA injuctions orders, contracts etc are either county or high court territory. as a reminder of what authorities can do with this type of behavior https://www.gov.uk/guidance/artificial-light-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints#artificial-light-not-covered-by-statutory-nuisance-laws


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints#noise-at-night-warning-notices

Comms69 wrote: »

EVERY criminal case in England and Wales starts in the magistrates court. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

At least this part is clear and well established and well known.


Whilst a drilled a hole in gnome would not amount to anything, again so I'm clear, the intention behind it to make it appear to be CCTV, could be interpreted as a method of causing harassment or distress and alarm to the neighbour. Flawed Advice. This COULD land the person whom committed the act of placing gnome with a hole in some bother, I doubt AN ARREST would follow from this, but COULD lead to amount to clear evidence of intention to harass for the purposes of obtaining an injunction as a CIVIL REMEDY in a CIVIL COURT in conjunction with parking infront of the gates, flood light overlooking their property, fly tipping branches on their land and loud music.

Comms69

TheTalkingDead wrote: »

No sir! JUST SO WERE CLEAR! Case law already establishes that Household limited CCTV systems CAN fall into what is now DPA 2018 section 36.

That is data collected for the purposes of law enforcement - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/36 - can you please explain how that is related?

Here's the case law:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160561&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=263584


- That's a French case, it would not fall under the scope of the DPA? Unless you care to elaborate on your point.





Here's more case law:Bernstein v Skyviews
& General Ltd [1978] 1 QB 479, Please pay attention to the judges remarks in page 489.


Heres the ICO guidance that encapsulates this case law into GDPR DPA2018.
ICO makes this point clear in section 3 of its published CCTV guidance and code of practice.
https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf



- Ah I see the reference now - you don't make anything clear do you. If you can point out where I said the camera would be filming outside of the property, great. But I didn't say that. I specifically said that the law would not apply for domestic purposes, which is true.





Here in contains how the Harassment act would apply. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj8qIvy0LvgAhUDqXEKHZTEDdIQFjADegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inforights.im%2Fmedia%2F1378%2Fdomestic-cctv-_-uk-parliament-briefing-paper-2016.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2k4kKhfNtWg-uhy8CNOWz5



- again. I didn't at any point advocate filming the neighbour...

As for my bold, your red, re read my reply to trevormax pay particular attention to his last sentence, unfortunately you have taken me out of context to a rather flawed advice offered by this poster. - there's a reason I post in red, it's easier to read who said what


Again CIVIL REMEDIES AKA injuctions orders, contracts etc are either county or high court territory. as a reminder of what authorities can do with this type of behavior - indeed. But this is where your reply was confusing, because you seemed to suggest that a criminal offence (such as harassment) would be dealt with in civil court... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/artificial-light-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints#artificial-light-not-covered-by-statutory-nuisance-laws


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints#noise-at-night-warning-notices


At least this part is clear.


Whilst a drilled a hole in gnome would not amount to anything, again so I'm clear, the intention behind it to make it appear to be CCTV, could be interpreted as a method of causing harassment or distress and alarm to the neighbour. Flawed Advice. This COULD land the person whom committed the act of placing gnome with a hole in some bother, I doubt AN ARREST would follow from this, but COULD lead to amount to clear evidence of intention to harass for the purposes of obtaining an injunction as a CIVIL REMEDY in a CIVIL COURT in conjunction with parking infront of the gates, flood light overlooking their property, fly tipping branches on their land and loud music.

It could be interpreted as anything anyone interprets it as. Including a gnome invasion of the home counties.


But hey, council are notoriously overflowing with resources for petty disputes and will generally throw thousands and more at petty neighbour disputes..

TheTalkingDead

Comms69 wrote: »

It could be interpreted as anything anyone interprets it as. Including a gnome invasion of the home counties.


But hey, council are notoriously overflowing with resources for petty disputes and will generally throw thousands and more at petty neighbour disputes..

Its ok I accept your apology for miss quoting me and getting the wrong end of the stick.

BigNickUK

Sorry for piggybacking of this thread but we have a similar problem.  We are trying to sell my dads house after he passed away. There is a long standing dispute with the neighbour over the actual development of houses and in particular over my dads house which the neighbour believes was built too close to his house.  The development was built in 1999 and my dads house never got a building completions certificate.  The council accepted some liability over the initial complaint about light access and paid the neigbour some compensation £2000 in 2005 to put in a velux window. He accepted the money but never put in the window. 
He has now erected a big sign claiming the house has no building completion certificate which is now false as the councils building inspectors have advised the certificate is now written off and no further action would be taken in terms of completion. 
We have now lost 3 prospective buyers due to the dispute and sign and we have tried writing a solicitors letter to ask him to remove it but he has so far refused. Any thoughts?

Davesnave

"Any thoughts?"

You should start your own thread, but the answer is to sell at a realistic price, allowing for the loony neighbour, just as you would if the council has built a refuse transfer station 40m away or you had an amateur mechanic with three part-restored cars on the drive next door.

It's life. You have to get over the things it throws at you by the most stress-free route.

Loza2016

I would be very tempted to tell him that due to the fact he’s making it impossible to sell you have no choice but to rent the house out to local drug dealers. 

I’d then get a few of the hardest looking guys to come round for a fake viewing and make sure he’s in to see them. 

Norman_Castle

BigNickUK said:

He has now erected a big sign claiming the house has no building completion certificate which is now false as the councils building inspectors have advised the certificate is now written off and no further action would be taken in terms of completion. 

As the council to provide written proof of this and provide both the neighbour and potential buyers with a copy. Also put your own sign up with the above proof.

davidmcn

Norman_Castle said:

BigNickUK said:

He has now erected a big sign claiming the house has no building completion certificate which is now false as the councils building inspectors have advised the certificate is now written off and no further action would be taken in terms of completion. 

As the council to provide written proof of this and provide both the neighbour and potential buyers with a copy. Also put your own sign up with the above proof.

Remember to get planning permission for the sign