Nuisance neighbours...

Byker28i said:
Not an issue at all. The case would have been reported in the local paper, I'd simply have made sure a photocopy of the article would have appeared in every letterbox for streets around, put up at the local pubs etc.
Click to expand...


Sadly that was not the case at all, because the police witheld information from me as to how the case was progressing - data protection!! This went on for months, after the insurance claim was settled on my car. He actually hit my car from both the front and rear, being so drunk that he went down the road, turned his car around and had another go from a different direction. He was so drunk that he couldn't find his keys to get in his house, so drove off again, which is when I phoned the police. The police asked me where he had gone - unbelievable!!!! That is when I went into my rant at them. The police turned up, knocked on my door and asked where he was - this was starting to resemble comedy central. He then turned up in his car, mounted the pavement nearly crashing through my fence, in full view of the two police. They interviewed him, came back and spoke with me, telling me that he stank of alcohol, was clearly drunk, but that they would have to take him down the station because they didn't carry a breathalyser - very strange as I had told them that he was drunk in my phone call.
The police didn't contact me so I asked for some advice about this on another forum and a solicitor advised me that I should quote the "victims and witnesses act", which I duly did, resulting in the police suddenly giving me information. It transpires that they charged him with "Stopped, drunk in charge of a vehicle", with no mention of the accident or damage to my car (front and rear bumpers plus bonnet).
I still have all the dates - back in 2006/2007 when all these incidents occurred, so I could get in touch with the local papers to see if it was reported. I assume that they would keep back issues.
 
dejongj said:
Unfounded assumption as in that I was telling someone where they can or cannot park. I did no such thing, I was merely having a neighbourly conversation and during that ask a neighbour why they do something. That is not the same as telling. That does not warrant a blanking of a neighbour. That does not the warrant the level of anger and aggression in response.
Click to expand...


You said

"One chap in the road has got a drive where easily 7 cars would fit. Yet somehow he can only manage one car at a time on it. And parks the other two outside the gates on the road. I asked him and he said it looked messy to have more than one car on the drive."

It is quite obvious that you have a problem with this. I wouldn't even have the cheek to ask someone - it is their business.
 
andy700 said:
Sadly that was not the case at all, because the police witheld information from me as to how the case was progressing - data protection!! This went on for months, after the insurance claim was settled on my car. He actually hit my car from both the front and rear, being so drunk that he went down the road, turned his car around and had another go from a different direction. He was so drunk that he couldn't find his keys to get in his house, so drove off again, which is when I phoned the police. The police asked me where he had gone - unbelievable!!!! That is when I went into my rant at them. The police turned up, knocked on my door and asked where he was - this was starting to resemble comedy central. He then turned up in his car, mounted the pavement nearly crashing through my fence, in full view of the two police. They interviewed him, came back and spoke with me, telling me that he stank of alcohol, was clearly drunk, but that they would have to take him down the station because they didn't carry a breathalyser - very strange as I had told them that he was drunk in my phone call.
The police didn't contact me so I asked for some advice about this on another forum and a solicitor advised me that I should quote the "victims and witnesses act", which I duly did, resulting in the police suddenly giving me information. It transpires that they charged him with "Stopped, drunk in charge of a vehicle", with no mention of the accident or damage to my car (front and rear bumpers plus bonnet).
I still have all the dates - back in 2006/2007 when all these incidents occurred, so I could get in touch with the local papers to see if it was reported. I assume that they would keep back issues.
Click to expand...

details of criminal convictions are public record. If you know the court you should be able to search online
 
Id like to think that a good neighbour is better that a far away friend. As such we can talk and discuss things normally like adults opposed to blanking each other and shying away from conversations.

I really don't get why there is a need to blank people opposed to having a civil conversation. Oh dear oh dear, what is the world coming to if you can't even talk to you neighbours.

However to be perfectly honest, if you did blank me opposed to having a chat and laugh, I likely would try and wind you up and when ever I can try and park in front of your house. Just for a bit of fun and until you engage with another human being. And also in the mean time fairly extrovertly greet you until you stop blanking me.

One thing I would never do is suggest or enact with a sledgehammer to damage your property.
 
Sadly that was not the case at all, because the police witheld information from me as to how the case was progressing - data protection!! This went on for months, after the insurance claim was settled on my car. He actually hit my car from both the front and rear, being so drunk that he went down the road, turned his car around and had another go from a different direction. He was so drunk that he couldn't find his keys to get in his house, so drove off again, which is when I phoned the police. The police asked me where he had gone - unbelievable!!!! That is when I went into my rant at them. The police turned up, knocked on my door and asked where he was - this was starting to resemble comedy central. He then turned up in his car, mounted the pavement nearly crashing through my fence, in full view of the two police. They interviewed him, came back and spoke with me, telling me that he stank of alcohol, was clearly drunk, but that they would have to take him down the station because they didn't carry a breathalyser - very strange as I had told them that he was drunk in my phone call.
The police didn't contact me so I asked for some advice about this on another forum and a solicitor advised me that I should quote the "victims and witnesses act", which I duly did, resulting in the police suddenly giving me information. It transpires that they charged him with "Stopped, drunk in charge of a vehicle", with no mention of the accident or damage to my car (front and rear bumpers plus bonnet).
I still have all the dates - back in 2006/2007 when all these incidents occurred, so I could get in touch with the local papers to see if it was reported. I assume that they would keep back issues.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear the other side of this, as a lot of it doesn't make much sense.

Firstly, there's no such thing as "Victims & Witnesses Act", well, not in England and Wales anyway. You should be told if you are the victim of crime, but as you aren't in this case, the Crown is so you wouldn't be told. I find it hard to believe that any solicitor would tell you to use a non existent piece of legislation.

Secondly, there's no such thing as "Stopped-Drunk in Charge", you either "In charge" or you aren't. Stopped or moving makes little difference. There is no requirement to administer a breath test for drunk in charge, so why would they need to take someone back to a police station to administer one? In any case, a Constable can only require someone to take a screening test at or near the place that requirement was made, taking someone back to a nick would breach that, meaning it would likely be ruled inadmissible.

Oh, and not very police officer carries a screening breath test machine. For example there was 4 between 80 or so of us on my Relief. They usually stay at the station and get taken out to the officers if needed.

I'm sure this is just faulty memory........
 
Bernie174 said:
I'd like to hear the other side of this, as a lot of it doesn't make much sense.

Firstly, there's no such thing as "Victims & Witnesses Act", well, not in England and Wales anyway. You should be told if you are the victim of crime, but as you aren't in this case, the Crown is so you wouldn't be told. I find it hard to believe that any solicitor would tell you to use a non existent piece of legislation.

Secondly, there's no such thing as "Stopped-Drunk in Charge", you either "In charge" or you aren't. Stopped or moving makes little difference. There is no requirement to administer a breath test for drunk in charge, so why would they need to take someone back to a police station to administer one? In any case, a Constable can only require someone to take a screening test at or near the place that requirement was made, taking someone back to a nick would breach that, meaning it would likely be ruled inadmissible.

Oh, and not very police officer carries a screening breath test machine. For example there was 4 between 80 or so of us on my Relief. They usually stay at the station and get taken out to the officers if needed.

I'm sure this is just faulty memory........
Click to expand...


At least you didn't put a sarcasm smilie at the end of that.

By the other side, do you mean the police version or the alternative view of the universe as held by my ex neighbour and his family?
I also believe that drink driving is a criminal offence (because of the risk to other persons - road users and pedestrians), so as he accidently or deliberately (through alcohol fuelled anger) crashed into my car twice in the said incident, then I would have said that I was a victim of a crime.
The "victims and witnesses act" was indeed what I was advised to quote to the police. Yes, you are correct that it doesn't apply in England, but it certainly seemed to do the job - albeit a few months too late - in getting the police to reveal the details of the charge and the result of the subsequent court appearance in 2007. I remember the wife of the neighbour saying to me a while after, that he wouldn't be driving for a while, and I simply replied - "yes I know". She seemed quite surprised that I knew.
They definitely took him away to the nick, because the silly old duffer had locked himself out of his house and his wife still out. They must also have taken blood tests or given him a breathalyser test because I was later told that he was more than three times over the limit.
I was quite happy with the response of the intial pair of officers - a man and woman - and their attitude, which was entirely sensible.
As a former police officer, would you say that crashing into another vehicle whilst drunk, then leaving the scene of that incident is a crime?
 
By the other side, do you mean the police version or the alternative view of the universe as held by my ex neighbour and his family?
Click to expand...

It's quite obvious what I mean. You were not the only person involved, so the other 2 parties, the police & your neighbour.

I don't doubt that he was arrested, but not for the purpose of a breath test. I think you are either confusing 2 things, or don't know about the subject? Either way, a breath test of any type, or a blood/urine test is not required evidence for drunk in charge, primarily because alcohol in blood does not prove drunkenness. You can be drunk, but below the drink drive limit.

As a former police officer, would you say that crashing into another vehicle whilst drunk, then leaving the scene of that incident is a crime?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your confidence, rest assured I do know my way round the various traffic legislation. However, you have presupposed that he was summonsed or charged with a driving offence in relation to your car. If he wasn't, and it wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't, then there is no offence, it's a crime, but not a recordable one, so thats why it wasn't mentioned to you. The drinking side of it isn't relevant as such to you, you are not considered the victim, the Crown is for that offence, so you have no entitlement to be told he was charged or the circumstances.
 
Seen plenty of mums having to push a kiddy buggy into the road because of retard drivers having pavemented their cars.

Personally I'd struggle past on what's left of the pavement regardless of whatever marks might be left on the poorly parked car.
 
viv1969 said:
Seen plenty of mums having to push a kiddy buggy into the road because of retard drivers having pavemented their cars.

Personally I'd struggle past on what's left of the pavement regardless of whatever marks might be left on the poorly parked car.
Click to expand...

Although I totally agree with your sentiments Ruth, wouldn't that mean that you were taking the law into your hands by inflicting deliberate criminal damage on the car - something which I would never dream of doing;)
 
andy700 said:
Although I totally agree with your sentiments Ruth, wouldn't that mean that you were taking the law into your hands by inflicting deliberate criminal damage on the car - something which I would never dream of doing;)
Click to expand...

No, the damage wouldn't be deliberate. That's the point
.
 
Bernie174 said:
It's quite obvious what I mean. You were not the only person involved, so the other 2 parties, the police & your neighbour.

I don't doubt that he was arrested, but not for the purpose of a breath test. I think you are either confusing 2 things, or don't know about the subject? Either way, a breath test of any type, or a blood/urine test is not required evidence for drunk in charge, primarily because alcohol in blood does not prove drunkenness. You can be drunk, but below the drink drive limit.



Thanks for your confidence, rest assured I do know my way round the various traffic legislation. However, you have presupposed that he was summonsed or charged with a driving offence in relation to your car. If he wasn't, and it wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't, then there is no offence, it's a crime, but not a recordable one, so thats why it wasn't mentioned to you. The drinking side of it isn't relevant as such to you, you are not considered the victim, the Crown is for that offence, so you have no entitlement to be told he was charged or the circumstances.
Click to expand...


Bernie, your answers are getting more and more bizarre - were you really a plod?
Why would he have been arrested then - on terrorism charges maybe, they are quite popular after all.
You say that a breath/blood/urine test is not required for drunk in charge, then please tell me how you prove it.
 
You say that a breath/blood/urine test is not required for drunk in charge, then please tell me how you prove it.
Click to expand...

It really isn't difficult! How much alcohol do you need in your body to be drunk? How much do I need to be drunk? How much does any person need to be drunk? Is it the same? No, of course it isn't! All a breath/blood/urine test tells anyone is that there is x amount of alcohol in someones blood. It does NOT tell you they are drunk.
It's really that simple.

There are 2 offences of drink driving.

1. Driving while having a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed limit. That prescribed limit is an arbitrary number, for most people, they would not be drunk, it equates to about 1.25 pints of normal strength beer, although in Scotland it is now less than that.

2. Driving while unfit through drink (or drugs), thats usually meaning drunk.

So, for example, driver A gets stopped for speeding, is acting perfectly normally but smells of drink. He gets breath tested and fails the test. Thats driving while having a BAC above the prescribed limit. Driver B gets stopped for speeding. Falls out of the car, can't stand unaided smells of intoxicating liquor, eyes are glazed and speech is slurred and is clearly drunk. That is driving while unfit.

In example A the evidence is he has blown over a number. Thats all the evidence needed. In case B, the evidence is he is drunk and clearly not fit to drive. A breath test is not required, the evidence is of his drunkenness is all thats needed.

Because everyone has a different tolerance of alcohol, everyone has a different level of alcohol that makes them drunk. In extreme cases that can mean you can be under the prescribed limit, but still drunk. I know someone who's body has no tolerance to drink, so a couple of sips will make him drunk. That would be well below the prescribed limit.

Nothing bizarre about it, just you lack of knowledge on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I wish a law would be brought in to not engage on the Internet whilst under the influence. Me thinks someone in this thread like a tipple with so many wild statements flying around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Whilst police don't always have breathalysers with them (although every traffic officer I've met has had), they usually call for the nearest resource with one. I'm guessing in Andy's case it's that the first officers arrived/assigned weren't traffic, so didn't have the necessary resources. However you are always breathalysed at the roadside, but that is as an indication for arrest. It's the two subsequent ones at the police station that the prosecution is based on.

Perhaps he was arrested for something else, breach of the peace? then changed to dr10, or perhaps he refused to provide?

Court proceedings would have the details
 
dejongj said:
Sometimes I wish a law would be brought in to not engage on the Internet whilst under the influence. Me thinks someone in this thread like a tipple with so many wild statements flying around.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your totally useless contribution;)
 
You are welcome :)
 
Byker

No. You couldn't arrest for BofP, which it isn't anyway, then change to a breath test process, as I said the screening test has to be taken before you can go down that route. The power is to require the driver of a motor vehicle, if he's been arrested he can no longer be a driver, so the ability to require that first test isn't there. You can't then just go to the evidential testing.

You can however arrest for Drunk in Charge, then go through it, but you don't need it. Drunk in charge can stand alone without testing.

As I said, a lot of what Andy says doesn't make sense, hence why I'd like (and yes, I know it's impossible!), to have heard the other 2 parts of the tale.
 
My other hobby is shooting Field Target with air rifles. My tip to anyone moving into a new house is to borrow a gun bag or two and make sure your new neighbours see you when moving in. Never had any issues with any of mine :)
 
Dave Semmens said:
My other hobby is shooting Field Target with air rifles. My tip to anyone moving into a new house is to borrow a gun bag or two and make sure your new neighbours see you when moving in. Never had any issues with any of mine :)
Click to expand...

when my brother moved into his last house i helped him move, anyway as we were loading up the van i labeled one of the boxes "blow up dolls and sex toys" in big black writing down the side of the box and put it in the van with the writing facing away from him..

i obviously let him pick that box up and carry it into his house,now with the writing facing outwards..away from him, righ past a couple of his neighbours, it was only after a couple of weeks i tiold him and he said i wondered why next door kept giving him funny looks :p
 
Brendan Mulachy said:
when my brother moved into his last house i helped him move, anyway as we were loading up the van i labeled one of the boxes "blow up dolls and sex toys" in big black writing down the side of the box and put it in the van with the writing facing away from him..

i obviously let him pick that box up and carry it into his house,now with the writing facing outwards..away from him, righ past a couple of his neighbours, it was only after a couple of weeks i tiold him and he said i wondered why next door kept giving him funny looks :p
Click to expand...

LOL - one of my mates sent me some computer cables in a large Jiffy bag - on the back he wrote the return address as "Madam Sins House of Bondage and Rubber, Soho, London". Our postie was a young woman - she never talked to me again after delivering that parcel :)
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Byker
As I said, a lot of what Andy says doesn't make sense, hence why I'd like (and yes, I know it's impossible!), to have heard the other 2 parts of the tale.
Click to expand...

To be quite honest with you Bernie, I have given up caring what you think, because you seem to be the World authority on everything.
I know what happened, the other neighbours know what happend (one of them was good enough to tell the police what happened), my wife knows what happened.
 
Dave Semmens said:
Still know a few people who use FWB 300s for Bell Target - a true classic :)
Click to expand...


The two stage trigger was supposed to be about the best at the time, and it was consistently accurate. I know that some people at the club at the time used to weigh individual pellets, but I never got that extreme about it. The sidelever took a bit of getting used to, and I was always advised to keep hold of it whilst loading a pellet - just in case.
 
viv1969 said:
Seen plenty of mums having to push a kiddy buggy into the road because of retard drivers having pavemented their cars.

Personally I'd struggle past on what's left of the pavement regardless of whatever marks might be left on the poorly parked car.
Click to expand...

I did exactly that when a load of builders blocked a pavement on a blind bend that I had to negotiate on the way the play school,
I did warn them as I went past the site, you have never seen so many blokes run out to move their precious cars before I got to them;)
What annoyed me was they were converting an older building into flats and their was ample parking in the front
 
A few years ago my best friend moved into a house at the end of a cul-de-sac that has a cut through to the High Street next to the house. He has a shared drive with his neighbour and he soon found that people were constantly parking on their drive to nip through to the shops as it was pay parking on the High Street. He spoke to the drivers who couldn't
give a toss he spoke to the council about it and it fell into the realms of "not their problem", so we had a chat about his options. Soon after this a persistent offender returned to his Mazda one evening to find that his driven wheels had been jacked up with a hi-lift jack and it was now on axle stands;).

My friend initially sat and watched as the bloke scratched his head and had a little rant, this got all the neighbours out with cameras etc. The bloke called the Police who were interested enough to send a couple PCSO's. They had a chat with my friend who identified his axle stands and demanded them back, but admitted nothing. A lot of head scratching went on along with a lot of chuckling. The bloke's jack wasn't up to the job of lifting the car off the stands and not one neighbour offered help. In the end the only solution he had was to call the RAC who came along and saved the day, though he did laugh a lot too.

This had an added benefit of it got all the neighbours chatting and being neighbourly. It made the front page of the local paper, and copies of it were put in the shops on the High Street. Not long afterwards the council changed some parking spaces to a free 20 minutes on the High Street and he now no longer has a problem.:D
 
S
To be quite honest with you Bernie, I have given up caring what you think, because you seem to be the World authority on everything.
Click to expand...

No, not a world authority on everything. But I am forced to wonder why rather than discuss, you go on the attack? No one's accusing you of being dishonest here, simply that there's obviously parts of this that are inaccurate. That could be faulty memory (no, that wasn't sarcasm!) or you've made assumptions. Because you say something, it doesn't mean we should all accept it as the entire story and 100% correct.

Go take a chill pill.
 
Bernie174 said:
S

No, not a world authority on everything. But I am forced to wonder why rather than discuss, you go on the attack? No one's accusing you of being dishonest here, simply that there's obviously parts of this that are inaccurate. That could be faulty memory (no, that wasn't sarcasm!) or you've made assumptions. Because you say something, it doesn't mean we should all accept it as the entire story and 100% correct.

Go take a chill pill.
Click to expand...

The last part which I have highlighted could apply to anyone posting anything on this forum. I on the other hand prefer to keep an open mind and accept what people are saying is true.
From my point of view, the events of the day are totally accurate, something which I was able to verify with a guy across the road who was the witness at the time.
The reason why I asked you some questions on police procedure, was not that I wanted to wind you up, but because I have never been charged with any offence and taken to a police station, and I don't actually have any friends or relations who have, so I don't know the procedure. So I wanted to find out more.
I would like to find out more about what happened immediately after they took the neighbour to the station, what they did with hime, what they really charged him with.
All I know, is that I got paid through my insurance and he lost his licence for a year, got fined and went on a course.
He then gave up driving and has thankfully moved away from the area.
 
Thats better.

I think whats probably happened is that he was arrested for drunk in charge. But, because the CPS manual expresses a preferance for it, they then reverted and charged for what I described earlier of being over the prescribed limit (proved by a breath test). You said he was 3 times over the limit, so as thats between 3.5 & 4 pints, so for most mature men, thats not really drunk, but as I said, it can be so you can never assume the number of times over the limit means someones drunk.

As far as the damage to your car goes, I would be disappointed to say the least if they hadn't interviewed him at the very least over that. But they may have done and the CPS did their usual and toss it in the too difficult bin.

For the future, getting information from the police is easy, usually best if you contact the control room, and ask for the officer who originally attended to get in touch. A bit of buttering up and they'll usually tell you everything you want to know. But be aware, they may not know much for a few weeks, the CPS like people bailed and for them to take their time deciding things.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Thats better.

I think whats probably happened is that he was arrested for drunk in charge. But, because the CPS manual expresses a preferance for it, they then reverted and charged for what I described earlier of being over the prescribed limit (proved by a breath test). You said he was 3 times over the limit, so as thats between 3.5 & 4 pints, so for most mature men, thats not really drunk, but as I said, it can be so you can never assume the number of times over the limit means someones drunk.

As far as the damage to your car goes, I would be disappointed to say the least if they hadn't interviewed him at the very least over that. But they may have done and the CPS did their usual and toss it in the too difficult bin.

For the future, getting information from the police is easy, usually best if you contact the control room, and ask for the officer who originally attended to get in touch. A bit of buttering up and they'll usually tell you everything you want to know. But be aware, they may not know much for a few weeks, the CPS like people bailed and for them to take their time deciding things.
Click to expand...


Cheers Bernie I appreciate that.
You can probably understand why I was upset at the original incident, given that it was the second time (that I know about) on that vehicle, and one (at least) on my previous car. He was an absolute menace, and used to go out every lunch time (when his missus was away) to the social club. On this particular day, he had waited until his missus went out, and then scooted off in his own car. When he was away, another car parked opposite his house, leaving about half a car space between it and my car - it was obvious that nothing could park there (apart maybe from a Smart car parked sideways). The first I knew about it, was when I was disturbed from watching the Scottish Open golf on the telly by a large bang outside. I then looked out of the window and saw his car at a funny angle to mine, and I said to the missus - "I think the old git has hit our car again". My OH looked out of the bedroom window and told me that he was driving away. She came downstairs and went outside to look at the car, and I got my training shoes on. When I went outside, he had turned the car around, and was trying to park in the space in front, but kept reversing into the front bumper. I yelled at him to stop, but he was telling me to move my car. It was then that I decided to use the Adidas persuaders, and that seemed to do the job, because he got out of the car and accused me of criminal damage to his car.
I think that if he had been a younger person then I would have decked him.
He was on about a bottle of whiskey a day, and topped that up with beer, and he was not at all afraid of drink driving. His missus knew about it but did not want to confront him, and his son and daughter just made excuses for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top