You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7800dm280eo
Couple with house, next to school complain that balls are a nusciance, and go to court to get an injunction! In a case which seems to have been ongoing for 3 yrs!
An average of about 15 balls per month... maybe the school should get the PE teacher to teach them how to kick 🤣
I doubt they are in danger of being scouted by Liverpool any time soon!
I hope that the homeowners got rinsed for court costs as the school has been extant since 1900 and their house looks like a 30's place. They bought a house close to a secondary education establishment and have become grumpy old gits (speaking as a putative old git), absolutely no sympathy. The fact that it got to court without settlement is evidence that the plaintives were not listening to reason and their legal advisers will have been significantly recompensed as a result.
TBF they were dealing with educators and they can also be a little intransigent and not open to compromise.
How about all the folk that bought houses close to Castle Combe racing circuit and then successfully got a court to drastically limit racing at the track due to noise? 🤣
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4721081.stm
£1,000 in damages is nothing, only one step up from the judge awarding a penny and telling them to get out of his courtroom. And expecting a house backing onto a school playground to be quiet seems a little optimistic.
School did everything they could to mitigate it, the couple didn't even respond to their offers.
Thought I'd look for an alternative to the BBC report and found this with a better historic of the events.
I particularly liked:
It was also heard that the couple 'feel unable to hold their annual summer garden party'.
Something tells me I wouldn't get on with them.
And another double post.
I'd simply not return any of the balls and save them up until there's loads, and the school had to write to me for 'keeping' them.
At which point I would allow one representative from the school come and collect thier massive ball collection but put some passive agressive restriction on collection times, like force them to make an appointment to collect rather than just turning up whenever...
The school would soon get tired of that and figure out a solution. Make it thier problem.
This is the one I always remember, as my parents met when dad was serving at Wittering and he finished his service there as well.
https://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/case/raf-wittering-harrier-jet-nuisance-case/
I hope that the homeowners got rinsed for court costs as the school has been extant since 1900 and their house looks like a 30's place.
I thought that whoever lost had to foot the bill for costs?
TBF this is a recent issue, with the all-weather play area only having been built in 2021 (right next to the homeowner's garden!) The problem has now been solved by putting up nets - why didn't the school do this in the first place? 170 footballs landing in your garden is ridiculous.
I particularly liked:
It was also heard that the couple 'feel unable to hold their annual summer garden party'.
Surely the kids aren't at school for a large part of the summer!
I've got some sympathy with them having lived near two schools (and still do). You get used to the general everyday noise (and drop-off and pick-up chaos). And they've obviously been fine with it for many years (having been there since 1994).
But if the council built an all-weather sports facility 2m from your garden and then rented it out at weekends and out of school hours you'd have a right to be a bit miffed.
170 footballs landing in your garden is ridiculous.
Yeah, you'd expect the occasional ball to come over, I get the occasional ball from the neighbours but I don't care, I just throw it back, but 170 balls in 11 months I think would really start irritating me.
I wouldn't sue but I might invest in some spears to mount the balls on like the skulls of my defeated enemies.
My old neighbour used to knock a ball of some sort over the fence at least a couple of times a week, I'd do the rounds and throw back 4 or 5 at a time, but he was allowed to just hop over if he wanted. I just moved next to a school, it does have massive hedge so I'll probably not be getting anything like this but some noise, some kid chaos, probably a bit of litter and such is just part of the deal. They had the pipe band practicing outside last night, worse sound I've heard in my life but, that's what you get for moving near to a school?
I hope that the homeowners got rinsed for court costs as the school has been extant since 1900 and their house looks like a 30's place. They bought a house close to a secondary education establishment and have become grumpy old gits (speaking as a putative old git), absolutely no sympathy.
That was my initial reaction also, "you bought a house next to a school and are surprised that there's children?" But on reading the article, the playground space was extended a couple of years ago and that's when the issues started.
Reading between the lines, I reckon that the bloke went round to the school to complain and then kids being kids started hoofing balls into their yard intentionally to wind them up.
that's what you get for moving near to a school?
I would agree but it sounds like the 'all weather play area' is a recent addition, so really with the wall only being 6 foot high there should have been a bit more consideration, like I dunno, putting a net up.
That said..I looked on google maps and im struggling to see which house it might be - seems all the residential properties are backed by trees/hedges, and I can't spot a 'large garden with swimming pool'.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Y498nabLbM23bmz98
Isn't the fence between the new school playground and the grumpy neighbours only 2 metres high? 😮
Having just read the second article Edukator posted,
"Mr Bakhaty felt as if the pitch was 'installed in order to deliberately upset the [couple]', it was heard."
Why would anyone think that, unless there was prior history between the couple and the school which we're not privy to?
It was also heard that the couple 'feel unable to hold their annual summer garden party'.
As in summer when kids aren't in school for six weeks?
My classes would occasionally launch water/compressed air rockets with parachutes from the football pitch behind the school. These would sometimes land downrange in gardens. Never got a complaint. Best use of a track pump.
I thought that whoever lost had to foot the bill for costs?
Not if a settlement is offered or a sum is paid into court ahead of the hearing. Then it's a case of if the award is less than that offered/paid the plaintive gets to pay their own costs. Civil law is a lottery and only a fool has their day in court.
Assumed this was going to be about living next to Man United’s training ground.
As in summer when kids aren't in school for six weeks?
I read somewhere (not in the BBC article) that the school was renting it out for use outside of normal school hours, so I assume it would be used year-round? So I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the residents – a recently-built facility being used night and day, and just a few metres from the boundary.
That said..I looked on google maps and im struggling to see which house it might be - seems all the residential properties are backed by trees/hedges, and I can't spot a 'large garden with swimming pool'.
If you look WSW of Redmeer Church is there a shiny new 5-aside pitch there? With massive garden west of it (with trees between). Across the stripy lawn there is a large rectangular area which could be a pool with a cover? The balls seem to land in the flower beds at those trees.
I've found the court decision:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/1175.html So:
- planning (unsuccessfully) objected to for changes to the school before the playing fields
- the couple had been using a bit of land they technically didn't own, between them and the school, they bought it off the school
- the school asked the couple to cut back the boundary trees and repair the fence that separated this land from the school
- the school got planning permission for the all weather pitch, the couple objected to this planning too
- the pitch has a 2.4m high welded mesh fence, 2m aware from the couple's 1.8m high wooden fence
- once in use the couple complained about balls & noise
- there was eventually a meeting that was fruitless
- the school expected them to document details of the problems. The couple instructed solicitors to send a letter before action!
- lawyers had unsuccessful discussions. The head teacher offered mitigations direct to the couple - which were ignored.
- the school implemented at least some of those mitigations anyway
Its not clear on the issue of expenses - the couple won £1000 for historical nusiance but lost the bigger aspect demanding an injunction to stop the use of the pitch completely.
The really bizarre thing is that whilst they have won £1000 - they just wiped much more off the value of their £2M house by describing it as unbearable, horendous and distressing
Re: the RAF Wittering thing, there once was a rather famous Yorkshire actor, who lived somewhere near the foot of Wensleydale. Let's just say "Engage!" shall we?
Anyway, in an interview with a local rag, he happened to mention that RAF Leeming's tornados were rather loud and distracting. It didn't take long for some of the flyboys to figure out where he lived, and from that point on his house was apparently used as a turning point for navigation purposes.
All highly amusing and grand japes, what.
Channel 5 (who else?) have just done a drama about a murderous rampage caused by a dispute over a neighbours kitchen extension.
I wondered if it had been written by a regular forum contributor
Anyway, in an interview with a local rag, he happened to mention that RAF Leeming's tornados were rather loud and distracting. It didn't take long for some of the flyboys to figure out where he lived, and from that point on his house was apparently used as a turning point for navigation purposes.
Wasn't there a barn roof somewhere up towards the lakes with "**** off Biggles" painted on it ? Wonder if it was related
My wife runs a small community hall that backs onto a school. We just cleared the winter's ball stock. Perhaps around 100 balls, most looking pretty tatty after a winter in the open. We just binned the knackered ones and now need to arrange the return of 2 boxes of the ok balls.
It's mildly annoying but hardly worth going to court over.
You could always move next door to one of the most well-known live music venues in the city then demand the council shut it down because of the noise 🙄
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68597451.amp
You could always move next door to one of the most well-known live music venues in the city, the very existence of which was one of the things that kicked off the regeneration of that area of the city, the now achingly trendyness of which is the reason you wanted to live there in the first place, then demand the council shut it down because of the noise
Just to add the full ironic context...
My classes would occasionally launch water/compressed air rockets with parachutes from the football pitch behind the school. These would sometimes land downrange in gardens. Never got a complaint. Best use of a track pump.
My boys discovered that the head of my track pump is the perfect size to wedge into a 2l plastic drinks bottle. Pump it up until it shoots off with a bang. It's mildly terrifying watching them run about in the street with it fully compressed ready to fly, I'm just waiting for it to hit someone's car or face!
"Yes yes we're being safe, we aim where it goes" (while waving it around in random directions, straining to launch) 🤦♂️
I did the bottle rocket thing with the kids in the local park. Of course, the rocket landed in the road and hit a car (no damage). the road in question is a close with minimal traffic so it was pretty unlucky. The best bit though was the driver getting out (older gent) and congratulating my lad, about 10 at the time, about how cool the rocket was while his partner glared at him out the car window.
I thought this thread was going to be about this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1krrhgl/a_refined_gentlemen/
You could always move next door to one of the most well-known live music venues in the city then demand the council shut it down because of the noise 🙄
...yeah, but if I remember my nuisance tort law, it's not a defence to say that the nuisance pre-existed.
Oh yes:
Coming to the nuisance
The defence of volenti (where the claimant is said to have consented to the nuisance by moving next to it) has never succeeded.
Miller v Jackson (1977)
FACTS: The claimants had moved to a house near to a cricket ground. They wanted an injunction because cricket balls were often hit into their garden.
HELD: The Court of Appeal would not accept the cricket ground’s argument that the claimants had ‘come to the nuisance’ and therefore consent to it. Lord Denning disagreed with the decision made by a majority of the judges in the Court of Appeal as it must have been obvious to the claimant’s that such incidents could occur when you move next to a cricket ground.
Lord Denning was a very sensible man
You could always move next door to one of the most well-known live music venues in the city then demand the council shut it down because of the noise 🙄
...yeah, but if I remember my nuisance tort law, it's not a defence to say that the nuisance pre-existed.
Oh yes:
Coming to the nuisance
The defence of volenti (where the claimant is said to have consented to the nuisance by moving next to it) has never succeeded.
Miller v Jackson (1977)
FACTS: The claimants had moved to a house near to a cricket ground. They wanted an injunction because cricket balls were often hit into their garden.
HELD: The Court of Appeal would not accept the cricket ground’s argument that the claimants had ‘come to the nuisance’ and therefore consent to it. Lord Denning disagreed with the decision made by a majority of the judges in the Court of Appeal as it must have been obvious to the claimant’s that such incidents could occur when you move next to a cricket ground.
Playing devils advocate.. It seems like the nuisance arose from the new all weather surface, not a pre-existing issue from when they bought the house.
I think that's the crux of it.
Personally I think the home owner has gone about this the wrong way and is being a bit of a twunt, but equally the school should have been a bit more 'on the ball' with how thier new construction might cause an issue to neighboring houses.
The issue might well be a bit 'trumped up' by the home owner but that's Almost a moot point.
If we are to take the claim of hundreds of balls coming over the wall at face value, then really the school should have forseen the issue and planned a bit better.
Or at least done something about it when the neighbors first started complaining.
That why I kind of 'tongue in cheek' suggested hoarding the balls and making the school jump through hoops to get them back.
Make it thier problem and I'm sure the school would get sick of it and figure it out on thier own... none of this legal stuff would need to happen, which ultimately justs costs both parties in time and money.
Playing devils advocate.. It seems like the nuisance arose from the new all weather surface, not a pre-existing issue from when they bought the house.
I think that's the crux of it.Personally I think the home owner has gone about this the wrong way and is being a bit of a twunt, but equally the school should have been a bit more 'on the ball' with how thier new construction might cause an issue to neighboring houses.
The issue might well be a bit 'trumped up' by the home owner but that's Almost a moot point.If we are to take the claim of hundreds of balls coming over the wall at face value, then really the school should have forseen the issue and planned a bit better.
Or at least done something about it when the neighbors first started complaining.
That why I kind of 'tongue in cheek' suggested hoarding the balls and making the school jump through hoops to get them back.
Make it thier problem and I'm sure the school would get sick of it and figure it out on thier own... none of this legal stuff would need to happen, which ultimately justs costs both parties in time and money.
IMO the legal stuff is a complete waste of everyone's time and is entirely the neighbours being "a bit of a twunt".
From the article:
... a substantial number of balls crossed the boundary fence before measures were put in place in 2022.
The headteacher of the school wrote to the couple to offer to fence off the area to create a buffer zone, put up a ball net, and restrict use of the area at certain times of the day.
The couple did not respond, but the school took action anyway.
Judge Glen added: "If a net was erected to prevent balls and other objects from crossing the boundary fence, I cannot necessarily see that there could be any real objection to opening this area up altogether."
So the school built the play area, then got complaints and put up nets etc within a year or so (despite the neighbours not cooperating), which stopped the problem. Even the judge said that the nets alone were enough and the school didn't need to do the other measures such as restricting play times. Reading between the lines, the judge's verdict seems to be "you're an idiot but, sigh, you're legally in the right so here's your damages, now eff off and don't come back"
So the school built the play area, then got complaints and put up nets etc within a year or so (despite the neighbours not cooperating), which stopped the problem. Even the judge said that the nets alone were enough and the school didn't need to do the other measures such as restricting play times. Reading between the lines, the judge's verdict seems to be "you're an idiot but, sigh, you're legally in the right so here's your damages, now eff off and don't come back"
I agree....
BUT* "got complaints and put up nets etc within a year or so"
It sounds like the school were quite flippant about it, so I'm really struggling to care about the 'plight of the school'.
Both parties lost by being dicks.
Good pay check for the solicitors though, I guess.
BUT* "got complaints and put up nets etc within a year or so"
If they did nothing for a year it would be reasonable to say they were flippant BUT Pitch opened Sep 2021. We don't know how soon after the complaints were made. We don't know what informal in-house solutions were explored (like asking the supervisors/kids to try to avoid balls leaving the pitch). We do know that by the start of Feb 2022 the school had a meeting with the complainer, which presumably lacked clarity on the problem because the school invited them to clarify it for a further meeting. The complainer then went legal. 6 weeks after the head teacher becomes aware of the formal legal route she proposes various mitigations, the complainers don't respond but instead begin court proceedings. The mitigations seem to have been in place by the start of the next term but were not needed over the summer holidays. So the school seem to have taken more than the steps the judge expected within 6 weeks of getting a formal, presumably reasonably coherent, list of complaints.
Good pay check for the solicitors though, I guess.
Certainly - there was expert witness testimony, a visit by the judge (with both Barristers) to the site, so I imagine we are well into 5 figures for each side (maybe more!). Its good when rich people get a bee in their bonnet about something though - their expensive legal fees help pay for case law which helps mere mortals with their own cases, Dartmoor yesterday is another example!
An advocate (Scottish equivalent to Barrister) put it to me that "you (my company) are not rich enough to have principles, and most people who are rich got there by ignoring their principles!"
I live in hope that the complainers decide they want to move and then have the horror of having their home devalued, due to the court proceedings, that they will have to declare iirc.
How about all the folk that bought houses close to Castle Combe racing circuit and then successfully got a court to drastically limit racing at the track due to noise?
I well remember that, it was basically a few very well off people who’d moved into the area having bought very expensive houses, knowing full well that the race circuit had been operating for decades, since the end of WWII, because it used the former perimeter track. Because they had money, and lawyers on speed-dial, they could, much like certain politicians and presidents, do anything they wanted. They thought.
What the circuit owners did was build a high dirt bank all the way around, which dropped the noise nuisance dramatically, and which made it much easier for visitors to see all the way around the track!
All the actual locals were very happy, because it brought in lots of money to those with accommodations available, and local businesses.
When Top gear moved to Dunsfold and car noise and traffic increased a few residents tried to put restrictions on noise levels.
The instigator owned a helicopter , which as we know aren't exactly quiet