Latest news with #neighbourdispute
The Sun
14-07-2025
- The Sun
I'm fuming after spotting my neighbour's camera – it looks directly into my garden and records everything my kids do
A WOMAN was left fuming after claiming her neighbour has installed a camera in their window which looks directly into her garden. The mum said she was especially concerned as her kids play in the garden in full view of the alleged recording device. 1 The woman claimed: 'He's now recording me. 'I can't cope. 'He's watching my kids, this is enough.' She didn't share whether or not she had already confronted her neighbour, but people were quick to chime in with their views on the video. Many people urged her to report the neighbour to the police, with some calling it a privacy violation. However, another said: '2 sides to every story.' The person replied: 'I don't do anything that untoward, I get anxious with confrontation. 'Next door go to sleep at 10, I respect that and make sure my house is in bed too cos not to make any noises! They scare my [sic] I'm alone with 3 small kids!' WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS? It's typically not illegal for a neighbour's security camera to capture images beyond their property boundary, but it can be intrusive and raise privacy concerns. If your CCTV footage captures images beyond your property boundary then you are subject to the data protection laws. Your kids are breaking law if they kick their ball over neighbour's fence, High Court rules after couple sued next door Legal experts say you will be regulated under the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act. You may be familiar with this when it comes to websites storing your data or companies sending you emails. Joanne Ellis, a partner at Warrington-based solicitor Stephensons, said if CCTV being captured falls outside of a homeowner's property boundaries, the person capturing the CCTV becomes a data controller. This creates a set of responsibilities for the CCTV owner. The person captured has a right to be told a CCTV system is being used and what information is being recorded. Ellis said a subject access request can be made if a neighbour refuses to do this. She said: "You can ask for the footage captured of you to be deleted - but it can be refused if there is a legitimate reason to keep it such as it captures a burglar. "Any third parties that the CCTV is disclosed to, such as police and insurers, are also obliged to process the footage in accordance with the rules." CAN YOU REFUSE TO BE FILMED? Ellis said that a neighbour can request they are not captured on CCTV, but this might not be granted if the filming complies with regulations. The CCTV owner must also process data in a lawful and transparent manner and only for specified and legitimate purposes. Ellis said: "In a domestic context, this is usually to deter or record burglaries or theft. "If the CCTV footage for example covers a potential entrance or exit and is not too intrusive for the neighbour the use is likely to be considered legitimate." As always with disputes, Ellis said, the best course of action is to speak with the neighbour, voice your concerns and try to reach agreement. If that fails it may be worth taking legal advice, but this can be pricey.
Independent Singapore
10-07-2025
- General
- Independent Singapore
Singaporean man baffled as neighbour accuses his family of making loud noises at 1am, says they're all asleep by then
SINGAPORE: A man took to social media to ask for help after his downstairs neighbour repeatedly accused his family of making loud noises in the middle of the night, even though everyone in the household is asleep by then. Posting on Reddit's Ask Singapore forum on Wednesday (July 9), he shared that the neighbour has been confronting his mother for weeks, complaining about random noises she hears between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. However, he explained that it's not possible, as his entire family goes to bed early since they all have to wake up for work at around 5 or 6 a.m. 'The only logical explanation is her hearing our footsteps when we go to the toilet in our half-awakened state. But why does the noise only appear at 1-3 a.m. when we are walking about the house the whole day?' he wrote. He added that the neighbour had recently sent a voice recording of the supposed noise, and to his surprise, there were indeed knocking sounds during the night. 'There really were knocking noises,' he said. 'She's now suggesting coming over to my house in the middle of the night to look for the source of the noise! I think this is ridiculous, but I can empathise a little since the sounds were like 'bom bom bom'.' Looking for advice from the online community, he asked, 'What's happening, and what can we do? I'm uncomfortable with her coming over because we're all working super early shifts (think 5-6 a.m. every day), and I think it's weird that a stranger is suggesting to come over? Any help appreciated! Thank you, everyone!' 'No need to accommodate her.' In the comments, several users tried to explain where the noise might be coming from. One said, 'That is the sound of the rebar in the concrete and water pipes expanding and contracting.' Another commented, 'It may not be your unit. It could be your neighbours or even the units above yours. Sound travels via a solid medium. Just because it's especially loud doesn't mean it's directly above. Suggest someone in your unit also stay awake until that time and figure out whether you also hear it.' See also MBLAQ's G.O and Choi Ye Seul get married Meanwhile, others advised the man to stand his ground and not allow the neighbour into his home if he felt uneasy about it. One said, 'No need to accommodate her; if she wants and you are willing, she can lend you some equipment for recording. Else, she can stand outside your house for as long as she wants, provided she doesn't disturb you. It is likely just plumbing.' Another stated, 'Is this neighbour a house inspector? If not, they stay over and also won't be able to do much. Just firmly refuse and direct them to HDB.' In other news, a local employee took to Reddit to ask if it is common for internships or entry-level jobs in Singapore to offer little to no training. Sharing his experience on the r/askSingapore forum, the man said that during his first week at work, he was immediately given a heavy workload and expected to pick everything up on his own. Read also: Local employee asks if it's normal for 'internships and entry-level jobs in Singapore to offer little to no training' Featured image by Depositphotos (for illustration purposes only)
Independent Singapore
07-07-2025
- Independent Singapore
Woman claims she can't sell her Bedok Reservoir HDB flat due to neighbour's clutter
SINGAPORE: Disputes between neighbours are not uncommon in space-scarce Singapore, but usually, these involve noise or other everyday issues. It escalates to another level, however, when one resident is unable to sell their unit allegedly because of their neighbour's behaviour. This appears to be the problem confronting a woman who lives at Bedok Reservoir View, according to a recent report in Shin Min Daily News. Her neighbour has so much clutter in the common areas that property agents have declined to help sell the woman's flat until the neighbour's stuff is cleared away. The 50-year-old woman told the Chinese-language daily that she's been living at Bedok Reservoir View with her family since 2009. Her neighbour moved in before she did and was already collecting various items at the time, but back then, these were kept inside his flat. Recently, however, he began to store items in the hallway, which ended up obstructing the common walkway. Photos posted in Shin Min Daily News show large items, including bicycles and TV or computer monitors. According to the woman, the man takes home items that people living nearby have discarded and then puts them in the riser or corridor. When she tried to talk him out of this in the past, he grew upset and raised his voice at her. However, she's not the only person who has attempted to raise the problem with the authorities — other residents have also complained about the clutter. This resulted in warnings being issued to the neighbour, but the woman said he cleared up the clutter after getting the warnings, and then began hoarding again. Additionally, since he thought that it was she who complained, he began to target her and her family. This is why they decided to move out, but when they contacted a property agent to help sell the flat, the agent said they would not do so until the neighbour's clutter was cleared up, as the mess would discourage those who would otherwise want to buy the unit. The woman then decided to file an official complaint with the town council, which resulted in the man being told to clear the corridor within a week. The neighbour's treatment of the woman worsened, however, as he allegedly harassed her in several ways, including recording her unit on his phone. He also wrote these threatening words on the warning posted by the town council: 'I am hunting you.' A photo of this was included in the Shin Min Daily News report. She also said that he spray-painted offensive words outside her door, which the town council had to paint over. /TISG Read also: 'It's like their storage unit' — Woman asks what can be done about neighbour who clutters the entrance corridor of their HDB unit
The Sun
07-07-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Our neighbour said she was building garage in garden but finished product is NOTHING of the sort… it must be pulled down
FUMING residents have demanded their neighbour "knock down" a structure in her garden which doesn't resemble the double garage she had planning permission for. The building lies in the grounds of the Grade-II listed Ladyshore House on a private road in Little Lever, Bolton, Greater Manchester. 3 Plans for a double garage were approved by Bolton Council in June 2019. But a single-storey home appeared instead, and calls have been made for it to be pulled down. Documents reveal that work on the home was completed in April 2022. However, a retrospective planning application for an alternative structure was only submitted in May, three years after it was finished. The retrospective changes to the structure included "subtle design adjustments" where the original plans for garage doors would be replaced by patio doors and three windows. Documents for the adjustments also stated the building would remain "of ostensibly the same size, design and position" as originally intended. The bungalow that has appeared is 130mm longer, 120mm higher and 210mm wider than what was approved in the garage designs. Positioning of the building is also different to what was agreed upon, re-oriented by two degrees, and placed 1.75 metres further south and 0.75 metres more west of initial plans. The applicant, Megan Dudley, is also seeking retrospective planning permission for a "hobby room" that was erected nearby on the site of a former stable block. Her property, which includes a four-bedroom Ladyshore House modernised from the former colliery offices it was built as in 1833, as well as a day spa and Jacuzzi, is currently on the market for £695,000. And neighbours are angry that initial permission was not sought to build another home on the land. One told the Mail Online: "It's a bit cheeky to be doing that. If you've applied to build a garage it should be a garage and not something else. "So the house should be knocked down. Everything should be above board, not done through the back door." Another resident in the area, Phil Amos, 59, said: "Planning regulations are planning regulations and should be stuck to. "This a lovely place to live but it's being spoilt by some developments which spoil the character of the area." He also had to go through the planning permissions process to add an extension to his home. Phil is concerned that if one person is able to get away with not following the rules others will too, and therefore the bungalow built instead of a garage should "come down". A female resident said there are fears developers have bought an adjacent field to just build more houses. Planning and architecture consultancy, Roman Summer Associates, produced a statement on behalf of Ms Dudley, which wrote: "In terms of appearance and materiality, the as-built building is very similar to that approved, but with subtle design adjustments. 'Those include the lack of garage doors on the front elevation, which have been replaced with a pair of French windows and the replacement of one garage door with three small windows. 'The rear elevation is, to all intents and purposes, identical to that approved aside from the inclusion of one additional small roof-light. 'In addition to the above changes to the building itself, which we suggest are overwhelmingly superficial and not remotely harmful, a small outbuilding, 'hobby room' has been erected at the rear. 'Finally and fundamentally, this retrospective application proposes the use of the building as a self-build home for the applicant, who wishes to reside close to her ageing parents, who reside in the adjacent Ladyshore House.' Some residents were not opposed to the building with one saying "it doesn't bother me". Another thought it did not have an impact on other residents, and that it was "reasonably sized". Planners at Bolton Council are expected to consider the application in coming weeks. Bolton Council have been contacted for comment. 3
.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
04-07-2025
- The Independent
Parliament's master bellringer hit with £100k court bill after tearing out neighbours' gates
Parliament's master bellringer has been hit with a £100,000-plus court bill after tearing out the front gates of his banker neighbour's £2m west London home during a neighbours' fight. Retired financier Nicholas Partick-Hiley bought his mews cottage in Disbrowe Road, Fulham, in August 2023, planning to make the property a dream home for his retirement alongside wife, Lisa. But the 64-year-old was shocked when he arrived on the day of completion to find his new neighbour - Parliament bellringer Adrian Udal, 65, - demolishing the door and roller gate securing the front of his home. Mr Udal insisted he had a right to do what he did as he owns the land the gate was on, but the couple sued and won the case last month after Judge Nicholas Parfitt branded Mr Udal's actions "wanton destruction" and 'carefully pre-planned'. And now Mr Udal - Secretary of the Belfry at St Margaret's Church, a medieval building next to Westminster Abbey which acts as place of worship for the Houses of Parliament - has been left facing a £100,000-plus bill after being ordered to pay the legal costs of the case. In a short hearing at Mayor's and City County Court, Judge Parfitt ordered him to pay £85,000 up front towards his neighbours' estimated £100,000-plus legal bill. He will also have to pay the couple £10,000 compensation for what he did, as well his own lawyers' significant costs, which have not been revealed in court. Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer, whose Secretary of the Belfy role involves liasing with clergy when bellringing is needed for special church, state and parliamentary events, while he is proud to have 'rung in' the New Year almost every year since 2000. He also works as a broadcast editor and has a keen interest in antique clocks, while his wife, Helen, is also a campanologist, being bell tower captain at St Gabriel's Church Pimlico. Mr Partick-Hiley is a retired financier and former managing director and head of sales for North America investment banking specialists Panmure Gordon. During the trial last month, Judge Parfitt was told how the two neighbouring homes are in an unusual layout, with the Partick-Hileys' house located behind Mr Udal's property and reachable across a drive and through a passageway, which passes under part of his house and into their courtyard. The drive and passageway are owned by Mr Udal, but the Partick-Hileys have the right to pass over it to get to their house, the court heard. Explaining the background to the row, Mark Warwick KC, for the Partick-Hileys, said: 'On the day of completion, Mr Partick-Hiley arrived at the property at about 12.10. 'He was astonished to find Mr Udal and another man. The two men were in the process of destroying the door and gate. They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services. "No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen. 'Mr Partick-Hiley endeavoured to remain calm. He contacted his solicitors, he felt helpless. 'Mr Udal and (the other man) continued with their demolition work until about 5pm. 'His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions. 'The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted.' The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing "security concerns" in the affluent street. They said they were aware of a conflict between their home's previous owner and Mr Udal before moving in, but thought it was settled until Mr Udal was witnessed dismantling the disputed gate. Through their solicitors, they had contacted him two months before the move, explaining that they planned to install 'better looking and more functional gates' once they moved in, although making clear they would welcome Mr Udal's input on the style and design of those gates. But in response, the couple alleged their new neighbour began to plot how to remove and install new gates, buying his own set of metal barriers on July 13, 2023, which Mr Warwick claimed showed that 'he was planning to carry out the destruction of the existing gates'. When the day of completion arrived, 'Mr Udal and his accomplice duly set about destroying the gates and disconnecting services running through the driveway', he added. Their barrister claimed Mr Udal had "carefully planned" what he did and did so "at a time to cause maximum disruption and distress." Soon afterwards, the couple's lawyers wrote to Mr Udal insisting that the removed gates were their property and that it was up to them to decide what alternatives should be put in their place. 'Mr Udal disagreed,' said the KC, adding: 'On 10 September, he began to hang metal gates, of his own choosing, right next to the pavement.' In court, the couple insisted they have the right to erect and site entrance gates "on either side of the opening that runs under part of Mr Udal's house," plus the right to park a car in the area. But Mr Udal insisted their right only extends to having the strip gated at the front of the property next to the pavement and they have no right to have a car on his land. He said that in removing the existing roller gate and door, and installing a new gate next to the pavement at the end of the driveway, he had done no more than assert his legitimate rights as freehold owner of the passage between the two homes. Handing victory to the bell master's neighbours, Judge Parfitt slammed his "wrongful act of wanton any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort" and ordered him to pay £10,000 damages. "Mr Udal was a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality," he continued. "The overall impression was that truth for him, in the context of legal proceedings at least, was no obstacle to a clever argument about language or the other evidence. "He referred to his destruction of the roller shutter and furniture as his having 'returned' it to (the former owner). This is also using expressions normally used to describe something helpful - getting something back to the owner - as a means of sugar-coating the reality of what he was doing: destroying part of the claimants' property on the very day they were moving in and would have expected to find the roller shutter and furniture providing a secure and private barrier between the road and their new house. "On a balance of probabilities, the defendant had planned to destroy the roller shutter and furniture on the day of completion and perhaps hoped that it would be a fait accompli by the time the claimants arrived. In any event, he continued his actions even after they had arrived and it was clear that they objected." The judge found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the couple have a right 'to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles" down the drive and passage. He added: "Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners." Returning to court last week to decide on matters consequential to his judgment, Judge Parfitt ordered Mr Udal to tear out the gate he installed within two weeks. He said the Partick-Hileys would have the right to install their own, but that if it is to be lockable they must ensure that Mr Udal is able to get in if he wants to get to the back of his house. He also ordered him to pay £85,000 towards their lawyers' bills - estimated at over £100,000 - ahead of an assessment at a later date. His own lawyers' bills were not revealed in court papers. Representing himself via a video link, Mr Udal said he was planning to challenge the decision on appeal.
