conflict over the fence with housing managment company

Bendy_House

Werdas, which actions are completely unacceptable here? I see two biggies; one is that you allow your children to play where the risk of their basketball hitting other folk's cars is very high - as has been demonstrated, and the other is that the car's owner reacted in an unacceptable manner, threatening to damage your property in return - tho' his response will be seen by many as more 'understandable', and less pre-meditated.

Of these, I think the first is the worst as it's entirely avoidable; you are fully aware of what you are allowing to happen. And it is hugely compounded by it teaching your children an appalling lesson in respect and consideration for others.

There are other 'unacceptables' too, I guess, such as the height of the hedge being allowed to become too high. And also a very possible conflict of interest by a member of the management team - I mean, if another resident complained about their car being hit by a ball, would this director reply with "No prob - we'll allow the hedge to grow at that point to act as a screen for you..."? No, I doubrt it.

(So, as mentioned before, this would very likely be a legitimate thing to bring to the attention of the management team/ bring up at the next AGM (Annual General Meeting), but it should be brought up in advance of this. However, I wouldn't go this route unless it's needed since, frankly, you are also in the wrong here.)

Anything else 'wrong' here? Is the guy allowed to park his car there? Seemingly 'yes'.

It would seem that this whole malarkey can be resolved by you simply doing the right thing, and that's preventing your kid's ball from hitting other people's cars. And the easiest and neatest way is surely by buying one of these nets?

If you agree that this makes sense, then you can use it to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution to the whole unpleasant business, and resolve it to everyone's satisfaction. I suggest you swallow some humble pie, and approach the guy in a somewhat contrite manner; make it clear that you do understand his concern of worrying about when his car could next be hit, and give an apology for this, through gritted teeth if necessary. If you want, break the ice a bit more and say you looked up 'Skyline' and now realise what an awesome car it is (and it is...). Then say you are happy to buy and use one of these nets, if they agree to keep the hedges at X height. Hopefully this will do the trick - a win-win.

If the guy doesn't accept this perfectly reasonable arrangement, then you can let him know - in an absolutely calm and measured voice - that you find that very unfortunate, so you have little choice but to (a) inform the local council about the excessive hedge height, and (b) bring to the attention of the property management team what you believe is a clear conflict of interest between a director and her partner's decision-making regarding his personal property.

I would expect a colour-drain at that point. 

(Ideally have this conversation witnessed, or your phone set to record. Don't share any of this, but just keep it in case it's needed.)

Section62

werdas said:

and his wife works for that housing management company

...

ALSO did I mention that his wife works for that housing management company, so I see there is conflict of interest

...

Im thinking do I have case for complaint that housing management company in regards to conflict of interest? I believe they would cover their employees and do nothing about it

Is your problem that the neighbour's wife works for the housing management company?

A lawful occupier of a property owned/managed by their employer as landlord/managing agent generally has the same legal rights as any other tenant would have in the same property.  If your children are causing a nuisance to the occupiers of a neighbouring property then the company have to act in the same way regardless of whether the complainant is an employee or not.

If by 'conflict of interest' you mean the individual should have fewer rights than anybody else in the same situation then you'd be incorrect.

If you mean the individual is getting preferential treatment, then there would be no possibility of 'conflict of interest' unless your property was also managed by the same company and the 'wife' was directly involved in decisions related to this dispute.

jonnydeppiwish!

Emmia said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Maskface said:

I know you may think it's the neighbour who is the problem but this is being caused primarily by the basketball and you need to look at the role you are playing in this conflict. It's not all one sided. It isn't fair that your neighbour should pay for a net to stop the ball going over. The neighbourly thing to do seeing as you are causing that part of the problem is to pay for the net yourself. But aside from that, have you any idea how irritating it is for other people having to keep listening to the ball bouncing on the floor? We had a neighbour who used to put wooden scateboard jumps in the street for their kids to play on, even though we only lived across the road from a park. The noise was a persistent nuisance to everyone on the street and it wasn't fair on other people having to listen to it every day. If the neighbour were to complain to the council that this was causing a nuisance there's a good chance you'd be asked to move it anyway, it's not the neighbours problem if the ball won't bounce on grass. When I was a child our parents used to take us to the park or playground to play basketball, not keep banging the ball outside annoying the neighbours with it. There's a saying that if you are not a part of the solution then you must be a part of the problem. I think you are a part of the problem and if I were the neighbour I probably would have complained to the council long before now that it was causing a nuisance. I'm not sure what legal protection you believe you have but I think you may be misinterpreting the right to light legislation, but your bigger issue right now is working with your neighbour so that they don't make a complaint about you causing a nuisance to them because you could be seen to be being unreasonable yourself. 

Why on earth would the council do anything about a kid playing basketball?

The neighbours might decide that a kid playing basketball out the front on the street isn't being looked after properly and call social services? I'm being slightly facetious, as the child should be safe to play at the front of the house, but...

The noise will be unbelievably irritating as won't be continuous, like a drone which you'd zone out on (like road noise) or in a regular pattern (like train noise) it will be random as it's a kid bouncing a ball - summer is coming too and so the prospect of more hours of this noise, 7 days a week for a few months might seem an unwelcome prospect to the neighbours who might decide to report it.

Edit: Also, just because previous impacts appear to have caused no damage, has no bearing on whether the next impact will. The next impact could crack the windscreen, cause a dent by hitting a more delicate section of the vehicle - are you personally in a position financially to cover this, whatever the cost?

I don’t disagree that the noise will be annoying but there’s nothing the council can do about it. It’s not a noise complaint, it just annoys some people in the same way as someone renovating a house.

Maskface

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Emmia said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Maskface said:

I know you may think it's the neighbour who is the problem but this is being caused primarily by the basketball and you need to look at the role you are playing in this conflict. It's not all one sided. It isn't fair that your neighbour should pay for a net to stop the ball going over. The neighbourly thing to do seeing as you are causing that part of the problem is to pay for the net yourself. But aside from that, have you any idea how irritating it is for other people having to keep listening to the ball bouncing on the floor? We had a neighbour who used to put wooden scateboard jumps in the street for their kids to play on, even though we only lived across the road from a park. The noise was a persistent nuisance to everyone on the street and it wasn't fair on other people having to listen to it every day. If the neighbour were to complain to the council that this was causing a nuisance there's a good chance you'd be asked to move it anyway, it's not the neighbours problem if the ball won't bounce on grass. When I was a child our parents used to take us to the park or playground to play basketball, not keep banging the ball outside annoying the neighbours with it. There's a saying that if you are not a part of the solution then you must be a part of the problem. I think you are a part of the problem and if I were the neighbour I probably would have complained to the council long before now that it was causing a nuisance. I'm not sure what legal protection you believe you have but I think you may be misinterpreting the right to light legislation, but your bigger issue right now is working with your neighbour so that they don't make a complaint about you causing a nuisance to them because you could be seen to be being unreasonable yourself. 

Why on earth would the council do anything about a kid playing basketball?

The neighbours might decide that a kid playing basketball out the front on the street isn't being looked after properly and call social services? I'm being slightly facetious, as the child should be safe to play at the front of the house, but...

The noise will be unbelievably irritating as won't be continuous, like a drone which you'd zone out on (like road noise) or in a regular pattern (like train noise) it will be random as it's a kid bouncing a ball - summer is coming too and so the prospect of more hours of this noise, 7 days a week for a few months might seem an unwelcome prospect to the neighbours who might decide to report it.

Edit: Also, just because previous impacts appear to have caused no damage, has no bearing on whether the next impact will. The next impact could crack the windscreen, cause a dent by hitting a more delicate section of the vehicle - are you personally in a position financially to cover this, whatever the cost?

I don’t disagree that the noise will be annoying but there’s nothing the council can do about it. It’s not a noise complaint, it just annoys some people in the same way as someone renovating a house.

There's also rules about renovating noise too. The council can do something about it if they agree op is causing a nuisance to the neighbours. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean a thing. To be fair you seem as uninformed as the op which is why they are in the situation. Do some research about what constitutes a nuisance and what the council can do about it. 

Section62

Bendy_House said:

Hopefully this will do the trick - a win-win.

If the guy doesn't accept this perfectly reasonable arrangement, then you can let him know - in an absolutely calm and measured voice - that you find that very unfortunate, so you have little choice but to (a) inform the local council about the excessive hedge height, and (b) bring to the attention of the property management team what you believe is a clear conflict of interest between a director and her partner's decision-making regarding his personal property.

I would expect a colour-drain at that point. 

(a) What good would that do?  The hedge is apparently under the actionable height, and it would cost the OP £300 for the council to confirm this.  A Stop That Ball™ only costs £112, much cheaper.  AIUI the OP wants the hedge to be significantly lower than 2m - that isn't the purpose of the high hedge legislation.

(b) See my previous post regarding 'conflict of interest'.  It is an allegation frequently made, but very often by people who don't understand what one is.  Where is the OP's evidence to support their allegation?

I don't think you'd see the colour-drain thing.  The neighbours seem to be well advised and understand the law (much better than some contributions on this thread).  I suspect 'fits of laughter' to be a more likely reaction by the neighbour(s) if the OP does what you suggest.

user1977

Maskface said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Emmia said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Maskface said:

I know you may think it's the neighbour who is the problem but this is being caused primarily by the basketball and you need to look at the role you are playing in this conflict. It's not all one sided. It isn't fair that your neighbour should pay for a net to stop the ball going over. The neighbourly thing to do seeing as you are causing that part of the problem is to pay for the net yourself. But aside from that, have you any idea how irritating it is for other people having to keep listening to the ball bouncing on the floor? We had a neighbour who used to put wooden scateboard jumps in the street for their kids to play on, even though we only lived across the road from a park. The noise was a persistent nuisance to everyone on the street and it wasn't fair on other people having to listen to it every day. If the neighbour were to complain to the council that this was causing a nuisance there's a good chance you'd be asked to move it anyway, it's not the neighbours problem if the ball won't bounce on grass. When I was a child our parents used to take us to the park or playground to play basketball, not keep banging the ball outside annoying the neighbours with it. There's a saying that if you are not a part of the solution then you must be a part of the problem. I think you are a part of the problem and if I were the neighbour I probably would have complained to the council long before now that it was causing a nuisance. I'm not sure what legal protection you believe you have but I think you may be misinterpreting the right to light legislation, but your bigger issue right now is working with your neighbour so that they don't make a complaint about you causing a nuisance to them because you could be seen to be being unreasonable yourself. 

Why on earth would the council do anything about a kid playing basketball?

The neighbours might decide that a kid playing basketball out the front on the street isn't being looked after properly and call social services? I'm being slightly facetious, as the child should be safe to play at the front of the house, but...

The noise will be unbelievably irritating as won't be continuous, like a drone which you'd zone out on (like road noise) or in a regular pattern (like train noise) it will be random as it's a kid bouncing a ball - summer is coming too and so the prospect of more hours of this noise, 7 days a week for a few months might seem an unwelcome prospect to the neighbours who might decide to report it.

Edit: Also, just because previous impacts appear to have caused no damage, has no bearing on whether the next impact will. The next impact could crack the windscreen, cause a dent by hitting a more delicate section of the vehicle - are you personally in a position financially to cover this, whatever the cost?

I don’t disagree that the noise will be annoying but there’s nothing the council can do about it. It’s not a noise complaint, it just annoys some people in the same way as someone renovating a house.

There's also rules about renovating noise too. The council can do something about it if they agree op is causing a nuisance to the neighbours. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean a thing. To be fair you seem as uninformed as the op which is why they are in the situation. Do some research about what constitutes a nuisance and what the council can do about it. 

I'd be interested to see any examples of any council treating "kid playing with a ball" as constituting antisocial behaviour.

Maskface

user1977 said:

Maskface said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Emmia said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Maskface said:

I know you may think it's the neighbour who is the problem but this is being caused primarily by the basketball and you need to look at the role you are playing in this conflict. It's not all one sided. It isn't fair that your neighbour should pay for a net to stop the ball going over. The neighbourly thing to do seeing as you are causing that part of the problem is to pay for the net yourself. But aside from that, have you any idea how irritating it is for other people having to keep listening to the ball bouncing on the floor? We had a neighbour who used to put wooden scateboard jumps in the street for their kids to play on, even though we only lived across the road from a park. The noise was a persistent nuisance to everyone on the street and it wasn't fair on other people having to listen to it every day. If the neighbour were to complain to the council that this was causing a nuisance there's a good chance you'd be asked to move it anyway, it's not the neighbours problem if the ball won't bounce on grass. When I was a child our parents used to take us to the park or playground to play basketball, not keep banging the ball outside annoying the neighbours with it. There's a saying that if you are not a part of the solution then you must be a part of the problem. I think you are a part of the problem and if I were the neighbour I probably would have complained to the council long before now that it was causing a nuisance. I'm not sure what legal protection you believe you have but I think you may be misinterpreting the right to light legislation, but your bigger issue right now is working with your neighbour so that they don't make a complaint about you causing a nuisance to them because you could be seen to be being unreasonable yourself. 

Why on earth would the council do anything about a kid playing basketball?

The neighbours might decide that a kid playing basketball out the front on the street isn't being looked after properly and call social services? I'm being slightly facetious, as the child should be safe to play at the front of the house, but...

The noise will be unbelievably irritating as won't be continuous, like a drone which you'd zone out on (like road noise) or in a regular pattern (like train noise) it will be random as it's a kid bouncing a ball - summer is coming too and so the prospect of more hours of this noise, 7 days a week for a few months might seem an unwelcome prospect to the neighbours who might decide to report it.

Edit: Also, just because previous impacts appear to have caused no damage, has no bearing on whether the next impact will. The next impact could crack the windscreen, cause a dent by hitting a more delicate section of the vehicle - are you personally in a position financially to cover this, whatever the cost?

I don’t disagree that the noise will be annoying but there’s nothing the council can do about it. It’s not a noise complaint, it just annoys some people in the same way as someone renovating a house.

There's also rules about renovating noise too. The council can do something about it if they agree op is causing a nuisance to the neighbours. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean a thing. To be fair you seem as uninformed as the op which is why they are in the situation. Do some research about what constitutes a nuisance and what the council can do about it. 

I'd be interested to see any examples of any council treating "kid playing with a ball" as constituting antisocial behaviour.

Try looking for examples of causing a persistent nuisance to your neighbours constituting anti social behaviour instead 😉

Section62

user1977 said:

I'd be interested to see any examples of any council treating "kid playing with a ball" as constituting antisocial behaviour.

It happens.  Antisocial people frequently weaponise their children thinking they will be immune from any action. What matters more is patterns of behaviour, not so much the individual acts.

Although cases of that type are unlikely to make the news (and therefore be quotable here) unless the situation escalates much further... in which case the news story is more likely to focus on the arson, stabbing, criminal damage etc etc which becomes the newsworthy part.

Emmia

Section62 said:

Bendy_House said:

Hopefully this will do the trick - a win-win.

If the guy doesn't accept this perfectly reasonable arrangement, then you can let him know - in an absolutely calm and measured voice - that you find that very unfortunate, so you have little choice but to (a) inform the local council about the excessive hedge height, and (b) bring to the attention of the property management team what you believe is a clear conflict of interest between a director and her partner's decision-making regarding his personal property.

I would expect a colour-drain at that point. 

(a) What good would that do?  The hedge is apparently under the actionable height, and it would cost the OP £300 for the council to confirm this.  A Stop That Ball™ only costs £112, much cheaper.  AIUI the OP wants the hedge to be significantly lower than 2m - that isn't the purpose of the high hedge legislation.

(b) See my previous post regarding 'conflict of interest'.  It is an allegation frequently made, but very often by people who don't understand what one is.  Where is the OP's evidence to support their allegation?

I don't think you'd see the colour-drain thing.  The neighbours seem to be well advised and understand the law (much better than some contributions on this thread).  I suspect 'fits of laughter' to be a more likely reaction by the neighbour(s) if the OP does what you suggest.

£112 is the smallest size, I suspect the OP might need a larger one or to add on the extension panels, which probably pushes the cost somewhere closer to £500. 

Having said that, if they can't afford the net then they probably can't afford the car repairs that may arise if no net (or an insufficiently large net) is installed.

jonnydeppiwish!

Maskface said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Emmia said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Maskface said:

I know you may think it's the neighbour who is the problem but this is being caused primarily by the basketball and you need to look at the role you are playing in this conflict. It's not all one sided. It isn't fair that your neighbour should pay for a net to stop the ball going over. The neighbourly thing to do seeing as you are causing that part of the problem is to pay for the net yourself. But aside from that, have you any idea how irritating it is for other people having to keep listening to the ball bouncing on the floor? We had a neighbour who used to put wooden scateboard jumps in the street for their kids to play on, even though we only lived across the road from a park. The noise was a persistent nuisance to everyone on the street and it wasn't fair on other people having to listen to it every day. If the neighbour were to complain to the council that this was causing a nuisance there's a good chance you'd be asked to move it anyway, it's not the neighbours problem if the ball won't bounce on grass. When I was a child our parents used to take us to the park or playground to play basketball, not keep banging the ball outside annoying the neighbours with it. There's a saying that if you are not a part of the solution then you must be a part of the problem. I think you are a part of the problem and if I were the neighbour I probably would have complained to the council long before now that it was causing a nuisance. I'm not sure what legal protection you believe you have but I think you may be misinterpreting the right to light legislation, but your bigger issue right now is working with your neighbour so that they don't make a complaint about you causing a nuisance to them because you could be seen to be being unreasonable yourself. 

Why on earth would the council do anything about a kid playing basketball?

The neighbours might decide that a kid playing basketball out the front on the street isn't being looked after properly and call social services? I'm being slightly facetious, as the child should be safe to play at the front of the house, but...

The noise will be unbelievably irritating as won't be continuous, like a drone which you'd zone out on (like road noise) or in a regular pattern (like train noise) it will be random as it's a kid bouncing a ball - summer is coming too and so the prospect of more hours of this noise, 7 days a week for a few months might seem an unwelcome prospect to the neighbours who might decide to report it.

Edit: Also, just because previous impacts appear to have caused no damage, has no bearing on whether the next impact will. The next impact could crack the windscreen, cause a dent by hitting a more delicate section of the vehicle - are you personally in a position financially to cover this, whatever the cost?

I don’t disagree that the noise will be annoying but there’s nothing the council can do about it. It’s not a noise complaint, it just annoys some people in the same way as someone renovating a house.

There's also rules about renovating noise too. The council can do something about it if they agree op is causing a nuisance to the neighbours. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean a thing. To be fair you seem as uninformed as the op which is why they are in the situation. Do some research about what constitutes a nuisance and what the council can do about it. 

I’m pretty sure I’m as informed as you are. Kids playing in their garden is fair game - balls bouncing, kids crying, screaming and running around are all part of normal life during the day.

What you are suggesting is that children should be seen but not heard - ridiculous. What else are they supposed to do - sit in front of gaming machines and not exercise? 

Yes it’s an annoying noise but it’s not going to go on all day, every day. And no council is going to do anything about it unless it’s part of a larger noise issue.