Motorsport noise nuisance - again
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
Caveat emptor.
How is the track at fault due to these peoples lack of homework when buying their property?
Simplistically, it is long established that claiming someone came to a nuisance is not a defence to creating a nuisance.How is the track at fault due to these peoples lack of homework when buying their property?
There is a famous case involving people who moved near a cricket ground, the nuisance was ruled 'actionable'.
And if you stop to think about it for a short moment, you will reason that it is indeed the way it should be.
What I don't understand in these compo cases is why the motorsport organization/ground is deemed responsible for any particular couple's decision on buying the house nearby?
I can see there possibly being a case if the motorsport venue had relevant historical permissions for 'x' number of events at agreed noise levels and then ignored its permissions causing additional noise to residents.....but for somebody to move in next to a venue and then deem them to compensate for their choice of move....I really don't see how such cases can come to court in the first place.
I can see there possibly being a case if the motorsport venue had relevant historical permissions for 'x' number of events at agreed noise levels and then ignored its permissions causing additional noise to residents.....but for somebody to move in next to a venue and then deem them to compensate for their choice of move....I really don't see how such cases can come to court in the first place.
Mr GrimNasty said:
And if you stop to think about it for a short moment, you will reason that it is indeed the way it should be.
Care to explain (and perhaps link to the case you are referring to).I'm not sure i'd reason that is the way it should be (I am happy to be corrected though).
If that's the way it was for every nuisance - then anybody moving near a main road, motorway, railway line, shops, school, airport, power station, etc etc would have a claim. Pretty much everything will be considered a nuisance by somebody - I guess the trick is to not move near things that you know would annoy you.
Moonhawk said:
Care to explain (and perhaps link to the case you are referring to).
I'm not sure i'd reason that is the way it should be (I am happy to be corrected though).
If that's the way it was for every nuisance - then anybody moving near a main road, motorway, railway line, shops, school, airport, power station, etc etc would have a claim. Pretty much everything will be considered a nuisance by somebody - I guess the trick is to not move near things that you know would annoy you.
I agree.I'm not sure i'd reason that is the way it should be (I am happy to be corrected though).
If that's the way it was for every nuisance - then anybody moving near a main road, motorway, railway line, shops, school, airport, power station, etc etc would have a claim. Pretty much everything will be considered a nuisance by somebody - I guess the trick is to not move near things that you know would annoy you.
There is a guy down the end of the road who's house is right beside a busy 'A' road.
He moved in about two years ago and to his surprise he found there was road noise.
To my knowledge he has made numerous complaints to the Highways Agency threatening to sue them if they don't (a) slow the traffic down & (b) reduce the number of traffic.
The guy is a total idiot.
How does anybody go through the house purchasing process, do the necessary searches, view land plans and deeds etc. to then be surprised that their property is beside a source of noise?
If the legal system in the UK makes an allowance for such stupidity then it is more a reflection on how stupid the UK legal system is.
If people know how silly the legal system is then surely people will play the system in their financial favour.
McWigglebum4th said:
So why can't i sue anyone about the wind turbines that were put up after we bought the house?
Because you had the opportunity to object to the planning application before it was granted.If you objected, but planning was granted anyway, then the council obviously thought your grounds for complaint insufficient.
If you didn't object, then you clearly didn't find it that big an issue.
TooMany2cvs said:
Because you had the opportunity to object to the planning application before it was granted.
If you objected, but planning was granted anyway, then the council obviously thought your grounds for complaint insufficient.
If you didn't object, then you clearly didn't find it that big an issue.
How could he have known what level of nuisance they would be, before they were erected?If you objected, but planning was granted anyway, then the council obviously thought your grounds for complaint insufficient.
If you didn't object, then you clearly didn't find it that big an issue.
No council takes individual complaints seriously.
jm doc said:
Well, clearly it's time for me to move next door to Heathrow, think how much more could be made from the constant noise. And since this has gone so far up the legal ladder I presume it now must have set the precedent for any future nuisance claims.
Sorry they've beaten you to it - as well as living by a racing circuit, they're also about a mile from RAF Mildenhall. I expect a claim to the MOD about the noise the planes make to be forthcoming next. 
The crux here appears to be twofold.
The house existed before the circuit. It is not on a new development, so the nuisance is not specific to the claimants. It affected anyone who lived there previously. The fact that they didn't seek an injunction or damages is irrelevant.
The respondents had not established that their activities amounted to a nuisance during a period of at least 20 years, so they had failed establish a prescriptive right to carry them out.
To fully understand the reasoning it is necessary to read the full judgement, not just the press release.
It's quite heavy going - http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC...
The house existed before the circuit. It is not on a new development, so the nuisance is not specific to the claimants. It affected anyone who lived there previously. The fact that they didn't seek an injunction or damages is irrelevant.
The respondents had not established that their activities amounted to a nuisance during a period of at least 20 years, so they had failed establish a prescriptive right to carry them out.
To fully understand the reasoning it is necessary to read the full judgement, not just the press release.
It's quite heavy going - http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC...
Absolutely ludicrous decision. Proves the old saying "the law is an ass".
When I was looking for my current house I viewed one that backed onto a main railway line and therefore didn't buy it.
I should have done now then sued Network South East for the nuisance.*
When I was looking for my current house I viewed one that backed onto a main railway line and therefore didn't buy it.
I should have done now then sued Network South East for the nuisance.*
- This is humorous remark and obviously nobody in their right mind would.
jm doc said:
Well, clearly it's time for me to move next door to Heathrow, think how much more could be made from the constant noise. And since this has gone so far up the legal ladder I presume it now must have set the precedent for any future nuisance claims.
No. The Supreme Court judgement will have no bearing on civil aviation.So unfortunately your enrichment plan won't work - http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/16420/Hilling...
If the aircraft has a noise certificate you're stuffed - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1452/conte...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff