Noise complaint from neighbour who assaulted me

ashe

Above poster is bang on 100%, your solicitor would probably exit your services if you told them you were going to skip over declaring that! Or not as I suppose it would maybe get them more work.

This is a property dispute because 1) neighbour complained to council - you would have to declare that 2) neighbour damaged your property and vehicle - you would have to declare that 3) neighbour was reported to police for assaulting you - you would have to declare that


https://www.lovemoney.com/news/21315/what-should-you-declare-selling-your-home-property-information-form

If the neighbour had even complained that your radio was too loud you would have to declare that - and they did complain about your guttering which the council have contacted you about - all declarable.

I fee for you because it literally punishes people for trying to resolve things but from a potential buyers point of view you’re hoping to disguise the fact this guy has smashed all your windows and abused you, which is why this declaration exists so that someone buying knows what they are getting into. If I moved in and discovered all this I’d bw on the phone to my solicitor quick sharp as it would be open and shut, everything is logged with the police and council and you would have lied on the form.

aroominyork

Thanks NewShadow and ashe - points well made and we'll take advice after the case goes through the courts and we know what timelines we are facing.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

NewShadow wrote: »

Which is a crime against property - not a crime against people.

Technically it's against the person as you can't racially abuse the property and on the crime report the op will be the victim.

Either way it needs to be declared.

NewShadow

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

Technically it's against the person as you can't racially abuse the property and on the crime report the op will be the victim.

Not within my understanding of the relevant statute - It's a case of damage to property with aggravating factors, in this case racial motivation.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence...

Section 30 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) creates an offence of racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage, based on the basic offence of criminal damage under Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Offences against the Person are listed here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

The CPS could have brought charges of common assault - as opposed to battery - If the OP had plausible grounds to "apprehend immediate unlawful violence" i.e. if the attack had been directed at the OP or their spouse with the actual property damage being ancillary.

That doesn't seem to be the case on this occasion.

Either way it needs to be declared.

I agree.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

NewShadow wrote: »

Not within my understanding of the relevant statute - It's a case of damage to property with aggravating factors, in this case racial motivation.


https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

Offences against the Person are listed here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

The CPS could have brought charges of common assault - as opposed to battery - If the OP had plausible grounds to "apprehend immediate unlawful violence" i.e. if the attack had been directed at the OP or their spouse with the actual property damage being ancillary.

That doesn't seem to be the case on this occasion.



I agree.

The 1861 offences against the persons act covers assault but if you read the criminal damage act how can a house be a part of a protected characteristic group?

Racially aggravated offences are against the individual.

NewShadow

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

The 1861 offences against the persons act covers assault but if you read the criminal damage act how can a house be a part of a protected characteristic group?

Racially aggravated offences are against the individual.

*cough*

Section 30 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) creates an offence of racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage, based on the basic offence of criminal damage under Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

- Criminal damage is a crime against property.

- Aggravating factors can be considered when considering the severity of any charge against people or property.

- One of those aggravating factors is racial motivation.

- That does not change the basis of the original crime - simply adds aggravating factors to it which are considered as part of the sentencing framework.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

NewShadow wrote: »

*cough*



https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

- Criminal damage is a crime against property.

- Aggravating factors can be considered when considering the severity of any charge against people or property.

- One of those aggravating factors is racial motivation.

- That does not change the basis of the original crime - simply adds aggravating factors to it which are considered as part of the sentencing framework.

So you're saying the only offences against a person are assaults because they are the only ones listed in the offences against the person act?

So:

Murder
Rape
Other sexual offences
Harassment
Hate crimes

Aren't against an individual and are therefore victimless crimes.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

Section 30 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) creates an offence of racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage, based on the basic offence of criminal damage under Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971. Refer to CPS Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Racist and Religious Crime, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

NewShadow

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

So you're saying the only offences against a person are assaults because they are the only ones listed in the offences against the person act?

So:

Murder
Rape
Other sexual offences
Harassment
Hate crimes

Aren't against an individual and are therefore victimless crimes.

Are you actually reading the links I'm providing?

'Offences against the Person', in law, are a specific category of crime - the acts falling under that category are listed in the link I provided above and repeat here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

If you follow the link, you will see that a number of the crimes you list above are included - and a number of others aren't because they're covered by their own category of offence... that doesn't mean they aren't acts carried out against or targeted at an individual - all it means is that in law they aren't included in the category of 'Offences against the Person'.

ETA: would it help if I pointed out a similarity with your example of murder?

Murder cannot be committed by a company or other corporation - it's either Gross Negligence Manslaughter or Corporate Manslaughter - both of which are separate offences.

That doesn't mean an unlawful death didn't occur - if you'll excuse the double negative - it means it's charged as a separate offence, with a different sentencing framework... which can include aggravated factors.

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

Section 30 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) creates an offence of racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage, based on the basic offence of criminal damage under Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971. Refer to CPS Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Racist and Religious Crime, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

Yes... that's the information I already provided you...

Shaun_of_the_Dead

NewShadow wrote: »

Are you actually reading the links I'm providing?

'Offences against the Person', in law, are a specific category of crime - the acts falling under that category are listed in the link I provided above and repeat here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

If you follow the link, you will see that a number of the crimes you list above are included - and a number of others aren't because they're covered by their own category of offence... that doesn't mean they aren't acts carried out against or targeted at an individual - all it means is that in law they aren't included in the category of 'Offences against the Person'.



Yes... that's the information I already provided you...

I don't need to read your links, I know that the offences against the person act is about assault. You're the one arguing that murder isn't an offence against a person cause it's covered by common law. You're also saying rape isn't committed against a person too.


If someone rights a homophonic comment on a gay persons house that's against the person unless you're going to argue the house is gay and offended.