Motorsport noise nuisance - again

Motorsport noise nuisance - again

Author
Discussion

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,656 posts

205 months

Friday 21st February 2014
quotequote all
Another appalling noise nuisance case. These 'people' moved near to a racetrack then sued the same for £20,000 damages. Incredibly, they won their case!

Thankfully, the Court of Appeal overturned that [ludicrous] decision and the couple were £85,000 down in legal costs due to the other side. Good.

"The couple say that, when they bought their home, "Fenland", just 500 metres from the track, in January 2006, they were unaware that speedway, stock car racing, banger racing and motocross were going on nearby. But Lord Justice Jackson said that was "most surprising" when all relevant planning permissions, going back to 1975, and certificates of lawful use were available for inspection on the local authority's register. And he observed: "It is a matter of prudence, indeed basic common sense, to inspect that register before purchasing a property in a rural location." http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1119401/...

After a further appeal, the case is before the Supreme Court - judgment expected on Wednesday 26th. Place your bets.

http://www.supremecourt.uk/current-cases/case_2012...

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Friday 21st February 2014
quotequote all
I hope & expect the appeal to go in favour of the track & set a precedent for future idiots who complain about established events in their new home area.

ging84

8,789 posts

145 months

Friday 21st February 2014
quotequote all
how did the win the original case?

Jobbo

12,956 posts

263 months

Friday 21st February 2014
quotequote all
How on earth did this ever get to the Supreme Court? Mental, but at least it'll set a proper precedent.

EskimoArapaho

5,135 posts

134 months

Friday 21st February 2014
quotequote all
Fairly local to me. As stupid as they were, its clear that some local knuckledraggers are total scum.

Here's a Before/After of their house:

2006: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatc...

2014: http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/local/latest-n...


carreauchompeur

17,823 posts

203 months

Friday 21st February 2014
quotequote all
Utterly bonkers.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Friday 21st February 2014
quotequote all
So they don't actually live in the house affected by the noise but presumably have a pressing need for rebuilding funds......................

Jobbo

12,956 posts

263 months

Friday 21st February 2014
quotequote all
EskimoArapaho said:
Fairly local to me. As stupid as they were, its clear that some local knuckledraggers are total scum.

Here's a Before/After of their house:

2006: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatc...

2014: http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/local/latest-n...
That's really sad - presumably they were hounded out? This quote implies a lot:

"They lived there from January 2006 until May 2010, when their home was flooded with oil after a digger was crashed into an oil tank, then it was rendered uninhabitable by fire the following month."

I guess they started something which was never going to have a pleasant outcome even if they won every appeal.

markiii

3,548 posts

193 months

Friday 21st February 2014
quotequote all
If I lived there noise would be the least of my worries

fkwits


agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,656 posts

205 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
The neighbours won their appeal to the Supreme Court!

http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_201...

"It is not a defence to a claim in nuisance to show that the claimant acquired or moved into her property after the nuisance had started. However it may be a defence, at least in some circumstances, that it is only because the claimant has changed the use of her land that the defendant’s pre-existing activity is claimed to have become a nuisance"

Jagmanv12

1,573 posts

163 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
There's 4 judges who should retire immediately.
What a stupid decision.

So now anybody who lives next door to a church can complain about the bells?

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
Decisions like this diminish the respect many people have for the court system.

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
Caveat emptor.

How is the track at fault due to these peoples lack of homework when buying their property?

We looked at a house once that fronted onto a main road opposite a school. First thing we did was turn up at the house and sit outside it at 8:30 on a school day.......we didn't buy the house.

We have just done something similar with a property that backed onto a railway.....sat outside for an hour at rush hour listening to the noise and frequency of trains.

From the quote it sounds like they were aware of the track before buying - but not the nature of the motorsport......tough s#it IMO, it would have been trivial to find out.

jesta1865

3,448 posts

208 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
Decisions like this diminish the respect many people have for the court system.
i find it mad that it got that high, what a waste of money for a derelict hovel.

rj1986

1,107 posts

167 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
Jagmanv12 said:
There's 4 judges who should retire immediately.
What a stupid decision.

So now anybody who lives next door to a church can complain about the bells?
people have in the past..and won!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134905/Ch...

Efbe

9,251 posts

165 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
TBH i think something MAJOR is being missed here, though implied by one poster.

House detroyed by an oil truck, then fire?!?

SiH

1,822 posts

246 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
The neighbours won their appeal to the Supreme Court!

http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_201...

"It is not a defence to a claim in nuisance to show that the claimant acquired or moved into her property after the nuisance had started. However it may be a defence, at least in some circumstances, that it is only because the claimant has changed the use of her land that the defendant’s pre-existing activity is claimed to have become a nuisance"
Frankly that's a disgrace. I can just imagine the Lords taking the view that if this sort of proletariat activity was taking place near their estates they'd want to put a stop to it by any means necessary! "Can't have the riff-raff getting out of hand by enjoying their ghastly motorsports can we?!"
I note the part which refers to recompense rather than an injunction; it will be interesting to see if the original judge goes downn this route. Otherwise the message appears to be that if your motorsport venue is less than 20 years old a disgruntled neighbour may be able to chuck a spanner in the works.

hedgefinder

3,418 posts

169 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
simply ludicrous, not to mention the fact that the house was probably priced according to its position next to a race track.
Its the same type of cases and ludicrous judgements that have reduced the decibel levels at most uk tracks and all but stopped some race classes at certain locations.
Just look at Croft to see exactly how these complete idiots can ruin a sporting venue. If this isnt stopped in its tracks by some decent judgements we will end up with this claim culture overtaking every area of society.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
When I view a house I invariably arrive early & take a tour of the immediate area, just to see the lie of the land.
If these clowns haven't done the same they deserve to lose their case.

Totally unimpressed with this decision.

Cliftonite

8,405 posts

137 months

Wednesday 26th February 2014
quotequote all
We have a house near Cadwell Park. Can we still claim even if we enjoy hearing the noise?

smile