Would This Be Considered Harassment?

Beruthiel

Lets say this is hypothetical in order to stay within charter rules.
I'm not looking for legal advice, rather looking for opinions on whither this would be considered harassment.

So, say my sister bought a little house down the country with her husband and 3 kids.
The old couple who sold the house had land at the back and side of the house.
The old couples son is a solicitor.
The son suggested they sell the old house as they were getting on in age and got them to move into town to a nice new house.
After the price of house was agreed the council insisted that an extra piece of land should be added to the sale in order that my sister also owned the right of way to the septic tank.
This did not go down well with the old couple but they had no choice. The sale went through.
As the old couple still own the land, the old fella is out around the house daily. No problem with that so far.
A few sheds came with the house. One had an old oil tank in it.
When there was nobody in the house, the old fella went into my sisters shed and moved everything about and took the tank.
When next the old man was out, my sisters husband told the man that he cannot go into their sheds without permission.
As the house is old, my sisters husband spends many a day working on it. The old man feels the need to comment on everything.
Why did you knock that tree down?
Why are you building that wall like that?
Nothing but questions and comments over the wall while the husbands works.
One day he could take no more and told the old man to fuk off, what he does on his property is his business.

A week later, the old mans son sends them a solicitors letter stating that it is regret, once again he has to write to them. (once again, suggesting that this is not the first letter, the first having to do with the septic tank *nuts*)
They must refrain from verbal abuse of his father.
They accused him of illegal activity (breaking into shed)
That if their two dogs go onto his land, they risk being poisoned and or shot as he has sheep in the field. (the dogs are never allowed off sisters property, so this has never happened)

My sister had enough, she rang the council and complained about the cow pen and road the old man built without planning permission. Council came out when the old man was on his property and the sh!t hit the fan.

My sister is of the opinion that the old pair never wanted to sell the house, but did anyway under the suggestion of their son. She has come to this conclusion because when they moved in first the old pair would drive out, sit in their car for a while looking at the house and then drive away again.

So, in your opinion, would this be considered harassment?
More to the point, what would one do under such circumstances, especially considering that this young family have very little money as every penny is being put into getting their new house in order.

Sounds like something out of the film Deliverence!
Hulla, if this is not within your charter rules, delete immediately.
Thanks.
B

Tom Young

NOAPA 1997:

Criminal

Harassment. 10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

[GA] (2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

[GA] ( a ) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

[GA] ( b ) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

[GA] (3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may, specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.

[GA] (4) A person who fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

[GA] (5) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied that the person should be convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may nevertheless make an order under subsection (3) upon an application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice so to do.

[GA] (6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

[GA] ( a ) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

[GA] ( b ) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.

The example above seems more civil.

hullaballoo

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more info needed. You'd need the terms of the contract of sale and the title deed/whatever.

There could be all sorts of easements/rights of way reserved to the old couple.

I would love to be able to say what it looks like on the face of it - but these things are never as they seem. I would say that your sister and her husband should avoid any direct interraction with the old couple and to keep records (e.g., a log/other recording) of all of the upsetting behaviour. Complaining to the council is no good. That's just snitching. Advise your sister and her husband to contact their own solicitors.

Beruthiel

What about the dogs hulla?
Is it legal to threaten them with a shot gun?

I have suggested she go to the Garda and ask if he has a licence, is she entitled to do even that?
I wouldn't like to think this man can walk around with a gun in his unbalanced state, that has her quite worried.

hullaballoo

He probably has got a licence. If the dogs are "worrying" his sheep, he can shoot them. I don't know of the legality of expressing a prior intention to shoot dogs - I would again re-iterate my point on contacting a solicitor.

Beruthiel

Oh I understand she should go to a solicitor. Unfortunately they cost money

hullaballoo

That's the price of enforcing your rights, though! The danger is that if you don't go by the proper (legal) channels from the outset, the person you're fighting might be able to use it against you in the future. Country folk tend to be expert at upsetting people as much as possible without stepping beyond the confines of the law. So, once you try and enforce your rights, they'll pull out something you did in the past that defeats your rights.

These things tend to come down to some sort of legal argument within the realms of equitable jurisdiction. One of the tenets of that jurisdiction is that you must come to equity with clean hands - i.e., having done no wrong in relation to the action at hand. Feel free to PM or phone me on this.

Cheers,
hullaballoo.

Beruthiel

hullaballú wrote: »

Feel free to PM or phone me on this.

Thanks hulla, I appreciate the offer.
I have forwarded this thread to my sis and if she asks me any further questions, I'll let you know.

The problem with my sis and her hubby is they can tend to be too laid back for their own good.
I'm guessing they hope time will just magically make this go away. I'm not so sure, from all that she's told me, the man sounds a couple of cans short of a six pack.

hullaballoo

/Takes B's point and heads over to PI to do some good old SMod flaming. Just for the larf, like. Less than three.

johnnyskeleton

Beruthiel wrote: »

So, in your opinion, would this be considered harassment?

Harassment of the young couple by the old couple, or harassment of the old couple by the young couple?

mikemac

hullaballú wrote: »

He probably has got a licence. If the dogs are "worrying" his sheep, he can shoot them. I don't know of the legality of expressing a prior intention to shoot dogs - I would again re-iterate my point on contacting a solicitor.

Dead right. "Worrying" sheep is recognized in law as the ewes may lose their lambs if they are in lamb and compensation is due to the farmer. And like it or not if these dogs so much as stray onto the couples land and get near to the sheep they can be shot. And don't bother complaining to the Gardai if the dogs are shot as they won't be interested.
I'm from a rural area and this happens every year. In fact, the parish priest gives warnings in the mass sermon on it as a lot of locals are farmers.

IRISH RAIL

Does the old man own the land where the house is on ?
what lands does your sister own ?
can this be solved by a big fence where he cant get on to your sisters land ?

Overheal

To protect the dogs keep them leashed or inside. Another option is an invisible fence with a radio collar.

Breaking and Entering, and robbing the shed, seems like enough to go on from what it sounds like.

Fair enough not to verbally abuse the father but telling him to fuk off and mind his own business isn't abuse. Its barely even a threat in my opinion. Still, advise they keep it politically correct.

hullaballú wrote: »

That's the price of enforcing your rights, though! The danger is that if you don't go by the proper (legal) channels from the outset, the person you're fighting might be able to use it against you in the future. Country folk tend to be expert at upsetting people as much as possible without stepping beyond the confines of the law. So, once you try and enforce your rights, they'll pull out something you did in the past that defeats your rights.

reminds me much of Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights o_0