My fence posts and panels removed.

tetrarch

Maybe it's me being cynical, but I have more faith in the Council protecting its assets and comporting to their statutory obligations than I do to a police complaint being followed up

Just to add that I am extraordinarily cynical when it comes to non-family "advocates"  who not only appear to take an overly active interest, but who also act in a clandestine manner

The OP (and we only have her side) sounds credible and genuinely concerned. The other neighbour, much less so

If it were my Mum or elderly relative in this situation then I kow who I would want to speak with

Regards

Tet

DanDare999

Bendy_House said:

I fear it may be as you suggest, DD; without witnesses, it's largely one person's word against another.

Quite a bit of 'circumstantial', tho', such as the unusual behaviour of such a seeming 'pillar of the community', who did not even check on the welfare of the person who supposedly tripped on their doorstep and knocked themselves out.

I would hope that a lot of his other behaviour on that day would also have rung warning bells; him going to the station to report an 'incident' of - presumably - a person tripping over on his step (who would do that?). And I wonder how plausible his description to the police of what 'happened' would have been - I bet their suspicion antennae would have been seriously twitching even before they spoke to janbero.

So I'm still hoping that the police have got something to work from; "The police consider there to be enough evidence to charge", and that it will be enough for a successful civil action if nothing else.

On that point, DD - if the police case came to nothing, and janbero pursued a civil action instead, can the police officer be called as a witness?!

A witness to what? They didn't see the assault and couldn't gather enough evidence to secure a charge. Maybe that would do more harm than good. 

As for your idea of circumstantial evidence, all the suspect needs to say is the OP came to his address and was confrontational then slipped upon leaving. They offered to call an ambulance and that was refused so they thought it best to report it. 

GrumpyDil

B_H.

Agree that this is a very unfortunate situation for OP and I would be hoping they get some sort of resolution of this.

However,when you say civil action what exactly are you thinking of in terms of claim/outcome? 

janbeno

tetrarch said:

Just to bing things back to your neighbour for a moment.

I don't know under whar circumstances your neighbour was admitted to a care home but if there is any kind of capacity issue then the Local Authority will have had to have had a DoL (Deprivation of Liberty) assessment. We had this issue with my MiL recently and the Council, to its credit, took this particular issue extremely seriously

The point I am making is that the Council may now now have a statutory obligation to protect your neighbour and their interests. Also, and maybe more significantly, the Council may need/want to protect THEIR interests regarding any care home fees recovery, whether now or in the future

You may therefore have an ally in the Council and speaking to them and voicing your concerns may help you protect everyone's interest.

Regards

Tet

Hi Tet, just want to say thank you for your advice. I managed to find out the local DoL number and spoke to them. I said that I thought there may be a DoL with my neighbour as she had dementia, explained that funds had been allocated to refurbish her bungalow and that the neighbour that was overseeing all the work had demolished our fence posts whilst we were away etc. I said he's denied any knowledge of Nancy's solicitor even after a letter form ours. 

I was worried that they may be selling the property privately and that we needed to know the solicitor so we could inform them of the dispute as it would impact back on Nancy not him if the sale went through without the dispute being registered.

He took the details and said he'd check and if there was a social worker assigned give them my number. Hopefully we will get the information we need and check that everything is above board. 

I didn't mention the assault , as our solicitor is dealing with the damage.

Bendy_House

GrumpyDil said:

B_H.

Agree that this is a very unfortunate situation for OP and I would be hoping they get some sort of resolution of this.

However,when you say civil action what exactly are you thinking of in terms of claim/outcome? 

A claim against the perp for the ABH. But I can now see that it could be difficult as there were no witnesses, and the neighb seems to have gone straight into denial mode.

Civil claims, however, are assessed on the 'balance of possibilities', so it would come down to what other factors are involved. If the police really did feel there was possibly enough evidence to charge - a much higher hurdle, even if, in retrospect, they didn't have enough evidence - then I'd hope there would remain a chance of a successful civil action.

It would come down to what the police felt was 'enough evidence'. If the guy's account was implausible, hesitant, subject to change - that sort of stuff - then that's why I wondered if the PO involved could be called as a witness.

DanDare999

Bendy_House said:

GrumpyDil said:

B_H.

Agree that this is a very unfortunate situation for OP and I would be hoping they get some sort of resolution of this.

However,when you say civil action what exactly are you thinking of in terms of claim/outcome? 

A claim against the perp for the ABH. But I can now see that it could be difficult as there were no witnesses, and the neighb seems to have gone straight into denial mode.

Civil claims, however, are assessed on the 'balance of possibilities', so it would come down to what other factors are involved. If the police really did feel there was possibly enough evidence to charge - a much higher hurdle, even if, in retrospect, they didn't have enough evidence - then I'd hope there would remain a chance of a successful civil action.

It would come down to what the police felt was 'enough evidence'. If the guy's account was implausible, hesitant, subject to change - that sort of stuff - then that's why I wondered if the PO involved could be called as a witness.

I get what you're say about the burden of proof. But go back to what I asked you yesterday. Why should a judge in civil court believe one party over the other without supporting evidence?

So what if the Police thought his story was implausible, hesitant or subject to change. Think Gerald Butler "it's not what you know, it's what you can prove". The Police are meant to be independent so they may not answer who they really believed if asked. As for changing or inconsistencies in his story maybe he was nervous having never been arrested or questioned by the Police before.

Were he to stand up in civil court and claim the OP came to his address kicking off over the fence, she was angry and aggressive and when he shut the door she was further enraged did X and slipped on his footpath/tripped over Y. He was so concerned when she refused an ambulance he went to the Police himself to report the incident. Does that sound like the actions on a guilty man?

What the OP needs is verifiable additional evidence that supports her account. 

DanDare999

And for the record in no way am I saying that I disbelieve the OP or intentionally being unfriendly. I'm just trying to explain how things are, frustrating as it is I wish there were more occasions where the evidence was tested in court rather than by communication between the Police and CPS.

DanDare999

Bendy_House said:

DanDare999 said:

I get what you're say about the burden of proof. But go back to what I asked you yesterday. Why should a judge in civil court believe one party over the other without supporting evidence?

So what if the Police thought his story was implausible, hesitant or subject to change. Think Gerald Butler "it's not what you know, it's what you can prove". The Police are meant to be independent so they may not answer who they really believed if asked. As for changing or inconsistencies in his story maybe he was nervous having never been arrested or questioned by the Police before.

Were he to stand up in civil court and claim the OP came to his address kicking off over the fence, she was angry and aggressive and when he shut the door she was further enraged did X and slipped on his footpath/tripped over Y. He was so concerned when she refused an ambulance he went to the Police himself to report the incident. Does that sound like the actions on a guilty man?

What the OP needs is verifiable additional evidence that supports her account. 

Absolutely, DD - I totally get that, and agree.

I was swayed by "The police consider there to be enough evidence to charge". If that is not a true reflection of the actual situation, then it's a toughie.

The fact they have gone to CPS supports that or the Sergeant won't make a decision. From what's been posted I don't think 1v1 is enough.

It depends largely on what 'evidence' - circumstantial or not - exists. If the OP had, for example, earlier reported the neighbour for being aggressive when challenged over the damaged fence, or if such behaviour was witnessed, and/or the PC carrying out the investigation deemed that the neighbour was an unreliable or evasive witness, then I would suggest that there is still a good chance of a positive outcome. PCs are not fools - they can sense when someone is giving a straight, honest account, with all the required detail; "His manner then changed to one of agitation and I could tell that he was very angry. He suddenyl pulled the door inwards with his right hand, and shoved me hard on my right shoulder just below the collar bone with his left palm, causing me to be hurled backwards... " vs "She just fell off my step, innit.",

Or the neighbour was aggressive (brave) in front of others and the OP went to have it out 1 to 1 and was the aggressor then. Went for the neighbour and fell. Holds as much weight ether way.

It doesn't have to be 'hard' evidence.

Evidence is evidence, in court it would be tested and need to be proved.

I mean, the OP is only in her mid-60s. It's already unlikely that she just happened to trip over on the neighbour's step at that time - a person who presumably doesn't make it a habit of falling over. 

Unlikely as it is how can you evidence she didn't. People of all ages fall for any number of reasons. 

Which is why I wondered - can a PC be called as a witness?

What do you think the PC witnessed or can give evidence on? Their nose has already been put out of place when they failed to secure a charge and have taken a personal dislike to the neighbour. Is an easy allegation for the defence to make.

Bendy we both want the same result for the OP,  I think you are either emotional with regards this or don't understand what it's really like for the Police. All I'm trying to do is spell out what it's really like.

Remember if it goes to criminal proceedings then the neighbour is still innocent until proved guilty. It's tough now without any procedural errors make by the Police. 

Feel free to ask ask any other questions.

DanDare999

Bendy_House said:

I'm talking about a 'civil' case.

For instance, I have an issue with a neighbour where they killed a tree in my garden with weedkiller. I know they did this - there is far too much history and additional 'circumstantial' and associated evidence that I can call on - but the police cannot act as they don't have enough 'hard' evidence of this particular incident. I almost certainly have enough for a civil action, but I hope to have had it resolved by demonstrating to this neighbour that I have more than enough with which to act if I wanted to, so it all 'stops right now - or else'. I hand-delivered a three-page latter, and vocally described everything they'd done and what evidence I had within earshot of anyone passing - including the postie. The PC, although unable to take the matter further, clearly accepts my account over the neighbour's, as he reported back on the conversation he'd had with them. Obviously there was the complete denial, but the neighbour then launched straight into a prolonged rant about the tree and how unfair it was. Now, if a cop came to your (innocent) door, and said a neighbour had claimed that you'd killed a mature tree in their garden, how would you react? I presume you'd be utterly mortified? Gobsmacked? Would wish to speak to the neighb to ask how they'd think such a thing? Want to sort out the obvious mistake? You wouldn't just say "No, I didn't do that! Bludy tree shouldn't be there in the first place - I don't know why he grows a tree in front of my window, I have a right to light, me..." And, if that misguided neighb subsequently approached you to ask about this, you would welcome the opportunity to prove your innocence, wouldn't you, and wouldn't drive away, tyres squealing, leaving your wife behind on your driveway?

That's the sort of stuff - circumstantial, but pretty damning. 'My' cop knew who was telling the truth. By a similar token, I would imagine that the OP's cop also knows. These things do matter in both criminal and civil cases - if you read reports on cases which are largely one person's word against another, these sorts of accounts and reactions often have the adjudicator commentating which witness is the more plausible and factual.

I bet Janbenos' PC 'knows'

How do you know your neighbour killed your tree if you have no evidence. Stop the circumstantial and hard evidence stance and give facts as to why you know they killed it.

In my opinion you're at the suspicion stage so develop it, did you see or hear them do it, did any one else see it, is there cctv, forensic evidence, have they told someone they did it?

An argument before hand, threats to do it and your suspicion isn't evidence they killed it. 

DanDare999

Bendy_House said:

DanDare999 said:

How do you know your neighbour killed your tree if you have no evidence. Stop the circumstantial and hard evidence stance and give facts as to why you know they killed it.

In my opinion you're at the suspicion stage so develop it, did you see or hear them do it, did any one else see it, is there cctv, forensic evidence, have they told someone they did it?

An argument before hand, threats to do it and your suspicion isn't evidence they killed it. 

Because it's been an obsession with him since he has a non-conforming window, right on the boundary, in an upper storey that completely overlooks our garden.

Because he has hacked at other trees before, for which the police were called and he was told to C&D.

Because he has carried out a campaign of harassment - such as lighting slow-burning fires when the wind blows our way, to which he adds plastics and felt and stuff, and when I approached him about them his response is "What are you going to do about your tree?" (All recorded)

Because an arboriculturist - and the RHS - had excluded all other possible clauses.

Because the attack was carried out on the two days we were away last year, and the initial damage was localised and directly in front of his window. The damage was extensive, near-instant, and occurred over that 2 day period. The tree was previously in rude health.

Because I have a recording of him saying "I hope the bludy tree falls down on your extension - serves you right for planting the bludy thing."

Because even his own son admitted - many years ago - that he intimidated other neighbours to get what he wants.

Because when I went to speak with him, the first time he just drove away, and when I expressed my disappointment to his wife (left standing...) that even she was clearly lying to the police, she looked extremely uncomfortable and wouldn't meet my gaze.

Because his daughter, who was in her car at the same time, then drove off shouting "You got what you deserved!".

And more.

All of this is 'circumstantial'. But I have very little doubt that a civil case would find in my favour.

I don't think they would. 
 
And he say he wasn't a home the same two days you were away, so someone else did it. You can't disprove this as you weren't there. 

You do understand that it's the burden of proof that's different in civil court don't you?

You still need evidence or hard evidence as you call it to prove your case.