Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • aroominyork
    • By aroominyork 19th Sep 19, 6:41 PM
    • 1,112Posts
    • 381Thanks
    aroominyork
    Noise complaint from neighbour who assaulted me
    • #1
    • 19th Sep 19, 6:41 PM
    Noise complaint from neighbour who assaulted me 19th Sep 19 at 6:41 PM
    Last year our neighbour complained about the noise of rain falling from our guttering during heavy storms. We had the guttering attended to. This summer he again said there was a problem and we again had it repaired. I do not know how well the repair was done but during heavy storms (we live right on the coast) some rain does fall. In July he came round during a storm and assaulted me, leaving me with a broken ankle and other injuries. The police have investigated and the matter is now with the CPS to make a charging decision.

    Today we received a letter from the council saying a local resident has complained that he is regularly disturbed by rainwater cascading from defective guttering. The council say they have made enquiries and are satisfied the guttering needs attention.

    Where do we stand with this? Is the assault a factor they would take into account or would they consider these two completely separate issues? How far should guttering be able to stand up to severe coastal storms without any rain falling from it?
    Last edited by aroominyork; 19-09-2019 at 6:44 PM.
Page 3
    • Shaun of the Dead
    • By Shaun of the Dead 25th Jan 20, 11:10 AM
    • 397 Posts
    • 313 Thanks
    Shaun of the Dead
    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...
    Originally posted by NewShadow
    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.
    • NewShadow
    • By NewShadow 25th Jan 20, 11:20 AM
    • 4,371 Posts
    • 17,442 Thanks
    NewShadow
    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.
    Originally posted by Shaun of the Dead
    No - actually I'm not arguing that at all...

    I'm finding it a little ironic that you started out saying this:

    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.
    Originally posted by Shaun of the Dead
    But seemingly have no interest in the actual legal technicalities of the relevant charges.

    You don't have to know the law to be a backroom barrister - but you do have be willing to trust that the CPS know the law to understand why your posts are factually incorrect.

    Given I have no interest in discussing legal technicalities with someone who has no interest the actual facts of the matter - I'll wish you a good day
    That sounds like a classic case of premature extrapolation.

    House deposit (plan to purchase June 2020): aiming for 26% = 32,900 + (450pm * 3 months) = 34,250 On Track

    Goal: Keep the bigger picture in mind...
    • Shaun of the Dead
    • By Shaun of the Dead 25th Jan 20, 12:23 PM
    • 397 Posts
    • 313 Thanks
    Shaun of the Dead
    No - actually I'm not arguing that at all...

    I'm finding it a little ironic that you started out saying this:



    But seemingly have no interest in the actual legal technicalities of the relevant charges.

    You don't have to know the law to be a backroom barrister - but you do have be willing to trust that the CPS know the law to understand why your posts are factually incorrect.

    Given I have no interest in discussing legal technicalities with someone who has no interest the actual facts of the matter - I'll wish you a good day
    Originally posted by NewShadow
    So your argument is rape is not a personal offence as it is committed against a statute.

    Murder is not committed against a person because it's against common law.

    Are you one of these freemen of the land who doesn't drive their cars but simply move it?

    Tell the op the racial abuse isn't against them personally.
    • NewShadow
    • By NewShadow 25th Jan 20, 12:43 PM
    • 4,371 Posts
    • 17,442 Thanks
    NewShadow
    So your argument is rape is not a personal offence as it is committed against a statute.

    Murder is not committed against a person because it's against common law.
    Originally posted by Shaun of the Dead
    Again - you are the one who wanted to discuss technicalities - and now you're talking emotive generalities because you are technically wrong...

    Rape is committed against a person - it isn't an 'offence against the person'... it's a 'sexual offence' as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 .

    A person is killed - that's not 'an offence against a person'... it's classed as Homicide - excluding in the cases of Gross Negligence and Corporate Manslaughter, which have their own legal categorisation.

    Tell the op the racial abuse isn't against them personally.
    Racial abuse is an aggravating factor in a crime whereby the offender is motivated by hostility or hatred towards an individual or group's race or religious beliefs, actual or perceived - it may or may not be 'an offence against a person' depending on the category of underlying crime.

    Here's the relevant section from statute:


    30 Racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage.

    (1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property belonging to another) which is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section.

    (2)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable:

    (a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

    (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or to a fine, or to both.

    (3)For the purposes of this section, section 28(1)(a) above shall have effect as if the person to whom the property belongs or is treated as belonging for the purposes of that Act were the victim of the offence.
    by Crime and Disorder Act 1998
    Question: if racially aggravated criminal damage to property is technically a crime 'against a person' - why would the statute need to specify in 30(3) they should be treated "as if" the owner of the property were the victim of the offence?

    Or do you think the drafters included that provision for giggles?

    Are you one of these freemen of the land who doesn't drive their cars but simply move it?
    No... I'm someone who's paid by the Government to draft legislation - hence having a good grasp of legal technicalities.
    Last edited by NewShadow; 25-01-2020 at 12:45 PM.
    That sounds like a classic case of premature extrapolation.

    House deposit (plan to purchase June 2020): aiming for 26% = 32,900 + (450pm * 3 months) = 34,250 On Track

    Goal: Keep the bigger picture in mind...
    • Shaun of the Dead
    • By Shaun of the Dead 25th Jan 20, 12:48 PM
    • 397 Posts
    • 313 Thanks
    Shaun of the Dead
    Again - you are the one who wanted to discuss technicalities - and now you're talking emotive generalities because you are technically wrong...

    Rape is committed against a person - it isn't an 'offence against the person'... it's a 'sexual offence' as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 .

    A person is killed - that's not 'an offence against a person'... it's classed as Homicide - excluding in the cases of Gross Negligence and Corporate Manslaughter, which have their own legal categorisation.


    Racial abuse is an aggravating factor in a crime whereby the offender is motivated by hostility or hatred towards an individual or group's race or religious beliefs, actual or perceived - it may or may not be 'an offence against a person' depending on the category of underlying crime.

    Here's the relevant section from statute:



    Question: if racially aggravated criminal damage to property is technically a crime 'against a person' - why would the statute need to specify in 30(3) they should be treated "as if" the owner of the property were the victim of the offence?

    Or do you think the drafters included that provision for giggles?



    No... I'm someone who's paid by the Government to draft legislation - hence having a good grasp of legal technicalities.
    Originally posted by NewShadow

    Answer: because criminal damage is covered by the Criminal Damage Act.

    So sexual offences aren't committed against a person then?
    • NewShadow
    • By NewShadow 25th Jan 20, 1:05 PM
    • 4,371 Posts
    • 17,442 Thanks
    NewShadow
    Answer: because criminal damage is covered by the Criminal Damage Act.
    Originally posted by Shaun of the Dead
    Then why - under paragraph 28 - was it not required to make the same clarification in relation to racially aggravated assaults, covered by the Offences Against the Person Act?

    Is it - perhaps - because charges laid under the Criminal Damage Act are offences against property therefore a notation had to be made that, in these specific cases, they should be treated as if the offence had been against the owner of the property?

    Perhaps because... if they didn't make that reference then the definition of 'racially or religiously aggravated' under the Crime and Disorder Act wouldn't have applied to crimes against property... ?

    So sexual offences aren't committed against a person then?
    If you continue to try and argue legal technicalities then you need to pay attention to the detail of your opponents argument... otherwise you are simply making a very poor strawman.

    To quote myself:

    Rape is committed against a person - it isn't an 'offence against the person'... it's a 'sexual offence' as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
    Originally posted by NewShadow
    You do know the difference between an act being committed and a the legal categorisation of an offence for the purposes of laying charges? Namely that the same act can be charged in several different ways - and therefore subject to different evidentiary and sentencing guidelines - depending on how the CPS decide best to bring charges.

    If you want to argue that the neighbour intended to offend, intimidate or attack the person of the OP based on the personal characteristics of the OP - that's a perfectly valid position to take and the truth of the charge is currently subject to the judgement of the courts - I've never disagreed with you on that point.

    All I am stating is that the reported charges laid against the neighbour are offences against the property of the OP with aggravating factors - and therefore subject to disclosure.

    That is a factual legal technicality.
    Last edited by NewShadow; 25-01-2020 at 1:07 PM.
    That sounds like a classic case of premature extrapolation.

    House deposit (plan to purchase June 2020): aiming for 26% = 32,900 + (450pm * 3 months) = 34,250 On Track

    Goal: Keep the bigger picture in mind...
    • Shaun of the Dead
    • By Shaun of the Dead 25th Jan 20, 1:37 PM
    • 397 Posts
    • 313 Thanks
    Shaun of the Dead
    Then why - under paragraph 28 - was it not required to make the same clarification in relation to racially aggravated assaults, covered by the Offences Against the Person Act?

    Is it - perhaps - because charges laid under the Criminal Damage Act are offences against property therefore a notation had to be made that, in these specific cases, they should be treated as if the offence had been against the owner of the property?

    Perhaps because... if they didn't make that reference then the definition of 'racially or religiously aggravated' under the Crime and Disorder Act wouldn't have applied to crimes against property... ?



    If you continue to try and argue legal technicalities then you need to pay attention to the detail of your opponents argument... otherwise you are simply making a very poor strawman.

    To quote myself:



    You do know the difference between an act being committed and a the legal categorisation of an offence for the purposes of laying charges? Namely that the same act can be charged in several different ways - and therefore subject to different evidentiary and sentencing guidelines - depending on how the CPS decide best to bring charges.

    If you want to argue that the neighbour intended to offend, intimidate or attack the person of the OP based on the personal characteristics of the OP - that's a perfectly valid position to take and the truth of the charge is currently subject to the judgement of the courts - I've never disagreed with you on that point.

    All I am stating is that the reported charges laid against the neighbour are offences against the property of the OP with aggravating factors - and therefore subject to disclosure.

    That is a factual legal technicality.
    Originally posted by NewShadow
    Well you have but I would expect anything else from a lackey.
    • NewShadow
    • By NewShadow 25th Jan 20, 1:42 PM
    • 4,371 Posts
    • 17,442 Thanks
    NewShadow
    Well you have but I would expect anything else from a lackey.
    Originally posted by Shaun of the Dead


    Is it a nice day where you are?

    Maybe you should go for a walk to blow off some of that steam before you make a fool of yourself
    That sounds like a classic case of premature extrapolation.

    House deposit (plan to purchase June 2020): aiming for 26% = 32,900 + (450pm * 3 months) = 34,250 On Track

    Goal: Keep the bigger picture in mind...
    • Shaun of the Dead
    • By Shaun of the Dead 25th Jan 20, 1:48 PM
    • 397 Posts
    • 313 Thanks
    Shaun of the Dead


    Is it a nice day where you are?

    Maybe you should go for a walk to blow off some of that steam before you make a fool of yourself
    Originally posted by NewShadow
    I'm not the one getting wound up coming back having wished someone a good day. Make you should trot off for some diy.
    • NewShadow
    • By NewShadow 25th Jan 20, 1:52 PM
    • 4,371 Posts
    • 17,442 Thanks
    NewShadow
    I'm not the one getting wound up coming back having wished someone a good day. Make you should trot off for some diy.
    Originally posted by Shaun of the Dead
    Haven't bought my house yet so just hanging around on the forums reading threads and waiting for my cake to finish baking.

    I'm sure - when I'm ready to start doing up my house - your advice will be most welcome as I'm learning all about DIY. I'm more than happy to respectfully learn from others when they have expertise in a subject that I lack.

    But then - I've never been the type that's felt the need to resort to personal attacks when I've gotten something wrong
    That sounds like a classic case of premature extrapolation.

    House deposit (plan to purchase June 2020): aiming for 26% = 32,900 + (450pm * 3 months) = 34,250 On Track

    Goal: Keep the bigger picture in mind...
    • patman99
    • By patman99 25th Jan 20, 10:22 PM
    • 8,323 Posts
    • 9,944 Thanks
    patman99
    And back to the Op and their problem next door.


    One action they are well advised to take based on the actions of the phsyco next door is to go for a restraining order against him.


    If the Judge finds in the op's favour, the nutter next door may well find himself subject to an exclusion zone centred around the op's property and may well also end up with a gps taag on his ankle.
    Never Knowingly Understood.

    Member #1 of 1,000 challenge - 13.74/ 1000 (that's 1.374%)

    3-6 month EF 0/3600 (that's 0 days worth)

    Do you/your spouse earn less than 197 p/w ?. Fill-in Form R85 and get your Bank interest Tax free.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

674Posts Today

7,083Users online

Martin's Twitter