conflict over the fence with housing managment company

jonnydeppiwish!

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.

The only time it does is when it’s on public property and/or banging onto a house wall. Then they just put up ‘No ball games’ signs.

Emmia

jonnydeppiwish! 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’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.

The kid isn't playing in the garden, they're playing on a driveway at the front of a house - which must also increase the risk of an accident, caused by running into the road to retrieve the ball...

Edit: Playing on the drive does mean the OPs lawn and flowerbeds are undamaged by balls and playing children

Emmia

jonnydeppiwish! said:

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.

The only time it does is when it’s on public property and/or banging onto a house wall. Then they just put up ‘No ball games’ signs.

Which aren't legally enforceable.

Section62

Emmia said:

£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. 

£112 gets one 11 feet (3.3m) wide - a wider one might be needed for a football goal, but the OP's children are (presumably) aiming for a basketball hoop which is a much narrower target than a football goal.  If their playing is so enthusiastic that shots could be more than approx +/-  5' from the target then the next size up (20 feet) is only £184, and therefore still £116 cheaper than a (potentially futile) high hedge complaint.

£299.99 would buy a 40' (12m) system, as per the OP's link.  If the playing is that enthusiastic then it is probable that things like the windows of the flats are also at risk of being smashed... which would very much be a concern to the neighbouring building owner(s) and their management company.

Norman_Castle

werdas said:

Debbie9009 said:

I also would not be happy about a ball hitting my car, it doesn’t matter if it’s an old banger, or a brand new Porsche.  

I really don’t understand why you would think this is ok, and I suspect you won’t get anywhere with having the hedge cut until that issue is resolved.

in all those years ball hit his car max 4 times, it is not like it is constantly hit, 

So its already hit the car four times with nothing being done to prevent it being hit again.

"every time my kids play ball he is watching them through his window, few times ball did land on his car , no damage though, and he aggressively rushed to tell my kids off"

He told them off because you didn't.

Take responsibility for problems caused by your children.

Section62

Emmia said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

The only time it does is when it’s on public property and/or banging onto a house wall. Then they just put up ‘No ball games’ signs.

Which aren't legally enforceable.

...unless they are giving notice of a local byelaw, or the land in question is highway.

werdas

Emmia said:

If the ball did damage the car are you in a position to pay for repairs? 

yes, that what I told my neighbour

Bendy_House

Section62 said:

(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.

a) This hedge - where the guy has allowed it to keep growing - is below 2m height? Is it? Are you sure?

If it isn't, then https://www.gov.uk/how-to-resolve-neighbour-disputes/high-hedges-trees-and-boundaries

High hedges, trees and boundaries

You must try to settle a dispute about a high hedge informally before the council can intervene.

Ask your council for a complaint form if the hedge is all of these:

• 2 or more mostly evergreen or semi-evergreen trees or shrubs
• over 2 metres tall
• affecting your enjoyment of your home or garden because it’s too tall

b) From what I understand from the OP's comments, this neighbour - the car owner - has been dictating which hedges should be cut, and has decided that one should be allowed to grow in order to protect his car. I do not understand what rights or control this neighb has over such decisions, but I understand his wife is a director of the management company?

And (c) - this well-advised-and-understanding-of-the-law neighbour threatened to puncture the OP's children's basketball?

werdas

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Op

From reading the information you have given, I can’t see any issue with the hedge.

Its 2m high - great so it’s at its legal height.

The flat management company have left it at that height because you’re not willing to take steps to prevent your children’s basketball from hitting residents cars.

The management company won’t cut your side of the hedge - you cut it and return the cuttings to the other side as is your legal right.

Frustrating as the ‘lost of light’ may be, it’s predominantly of your own making. There is no legal standing for loss of light from a hedge that’s at 2m high.

What can you do?

Move/discard the basketball hoop or put in some sort of preventative measure to stop the potential for balls to hit flat residents cars.

Once that is in place, go round with some cake and ask politely if they’ll cut the hedge lower. Even offer to pay for it yourself.

thanks, currently hedge is above 2m, nealry 3, I would say
what are you refering to return the cuttings to their side? what rights are you referring?

Maskface

werdas said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Op

From reading the information you have given, I can’t see any issue with the hedge.

Its 2m high - great so it’s at its legal height.

The flat management company have left it at that height because you’re not willing to take steps to prevent your children’s basketball from hitting residents cars.

The management company won’t cut your side of the hedge - you cut it and return the cuttings to the other side as is your legal right.

Frustrating as the ‘lost of light’ may be, it’s predominantly of your own making. There is no legal standing for loss of light from a hedge that’s at 2m high.

What can you do?

Move/discard the basketball hoop or put in some sort of preventative measure to stop the potential for balls to hit flat residents cars.

Once that is in place, go round with some cake and ask politely if they’ll cut the hedge lower. Even offer to pay for it yourself.

thanks, currently hedge is above 2m, nealry 3, I would say
what are you refering to return the cuttings to their side? what rights are you referring?

You are entitled to cut what is growing on your side and return it to your neighbour, but that's not really the issue you have and probably won't help the relationship much. Worry more about how you are going to stop your kids annoying people.