Looking for legal support!!!

elckids

I am looking for legal support!!! My neighbour put on two new windows facing my sidegarden and oppoisite to the existing windows in my house without any permission, which affect our privacy and house value. they informed me last night at 10:00pm and take action rudely today, the work is on-going now. According to the Planning Department in county hall, this need a planning permit but they did not apply. I am looking for the legal support for the next to protect our legal right in this country, please help us if possible. pm me if possible. thanks a lot!

deelite

Some of the Citizens Information Centres have Free Legal Advice Centred (FLAC) on certain days of the week.

Paulw

Just contact your local council planning dept and let them know.

They will deal with the issue.

MagicSean

Have you tried curtains?

elckids

thanks you Deelite, Paulw and MagicSean!

coylemj

elckids wrote: »

I am looking for legal support!!! My neighbour openned two windows facing my sidegarden and oppoisite to the existing windows in my house without any permission, which affect our privacy and house value.

So it's ok for you to have windows facing his house but not the other way round, can you explain the 'loss of privacy' please - what about his privacy?

Paulw

coylemj wrote: »

So it's ok for you to have windows facing his house but not the other way round, can you explain the 'loss of privacy' please - what about his privacy?

Well, if he doesn't have windows on that side of the house, you can't look in.

MagicSean

Tonight on Neighbours From Hell we meet the man who has to live next door to a brothel run by violent criminals. But first we travel to Ireland where a mans neighbour has installed a window which looks at his garden.

elckids

Sorry I did not explain clearly, these two windows were not there before, now they put on two windows without any permission, these two windows facing our garden and our extsitimng windows.

Zambia

Do your windows face his Garden?

stargazer 68

elckids wrote: »

Sorry I did not explain clearly, these two windows were not there before, now they put on two windows without any permission, these two windows facing our garden and our extsitimng windows.

You did explain but if you have windows there then why can't he? If you contacted planning and found he didnt have permission then why didnt you lodge a complaint there and then?

elckids

No, he did not have side garden and I have.

littlemac1980

You should contact a solicitor, they could do with the work!

ResearchWill

Dovies wrote: »

You did explain but if you have windows there then why can't he? If you contacted planning and found he didnt have permission then why didnt you lodge a complaint there and then?

Because the OP's windows used to face a blank wall, no issue for either party re privacy. Now the neighbour is putting in windows, so now each neighbour will look in each others property.

While it is obvious the neighbour does not have an issue, that does not stop the OP having an issue. An old pervert may not mind looking in the bedroom of his model neighbour, but she may mind.

the_syco

elckids wrote: »

No, he did not have side garden and I have.

Did your house come with a side garden in it's original state, or did you put it in yourself? If the latter, did you apply for permission, etc, etc?

the_syco

Actually, I'm thinking if you win in court, they could counter-claim, and get your windows removed as well. Just keep that in mind.

Jo King

the_syco wrote: »

Actually, I'm thinking if you win in court, they could counter-claim, and get your windows removed as well. Just keep that in mind.

Have you any legal authority for that proposition?

coylemj

Jo King wrote: »

Have you any legal authority for that proposition?

I think the_syco is relying on the legal principle of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' - if the OP can have side windows facing his neighbour's house, why can't the neighbour have the same?

If the OP's side windows have planning permission then it's inconceivable that his neighbour would have permission refused to install the same feature because that would establish the principle that if two neighbours had blank gable end walls facing each other, the first one to install end windows would trump the other from doing the same.

If the OP objects on the basis of invasion of privacy, the neighbour can counter that the problem can be solved by the OP bricking up his existing side windows!

Procrastastudy

He who seeks double glazing must do double glazing?

Claire McCarthy Cork

The responsibility to ensure that people comply with planning requirements rests with the local planning authority. You must let them know about the infringement, and then they should follow up and take action to prevent the work from proceeding. I would write to them. Then I would hound them about it, and make your local representatives on the council aware of the matter as well. The further the work progresses, the less likely they or you are to be able to do anything about it. I would treat the matter as urgent.

You may also have a civil cause of action, in respect of the invasion of your privacy, and in principle you could apply for an injunction to prevent the work proceeding. However, this could prove to be an expensive undertaking, and it should not be necessary if the Council does its job.

Good luck!

NoQuarter

Slightly different facts but here is a base argument for you.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/couple-told-to-block-window-overlooking-hermitlike-nuns-3167172.html

ResearchWill

NoQuarter wrote: »

Slightly different facts but here is a base argument for you.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/couple-told-to-block-window-overlooking-hermitlike-nuns-3167172.html

Interesting case.

Ken.

NoQuarter wrote: »

Slightly different facts but here is a base argument for you.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/couple-told-to-block-window-overlooking-hermitlike-nuns-3167172.html

Does anyone know could the guy ordered to block up his window sue the people who sold him the house for not telling him about the restrictive covenant.

Procrastastudy

ken wrote: »

Does anyone know could the guy ordered to block up his window sue the people who sold him the house for not telling him about the restrictive covenant.

From reading a few chapters in the wrong land law book - negligence in conveyancing? Oh sorry I didnt see that bit I thought he just joined the solicitors.

ResearchWill

ken wrote: »

Does anyone know could the guy ordered to block up his window sue the people who sold him the house for not telling him about the restrictive covenant.

No, as they gave him all the documents, his solicitor missed it.

Ken.

ResearchWill wrote: »

No, as they gave him all the documents, his solicitor missed it.

Ah o.k. I don't know what it means where it says in the article "The couple joined their then solicitors Conor O’Reilly and Frank Egan, practising as Egan O’Reilly solicitors, as a third party defendant to the proceedings".What's the meaning of this.

Procrastastudy

It means they brought them in as like a co-defendant rather than being sued by the nuns and then suing the solicitors.

NoQuarter

ken wrote: »

Ah o.k. I don't know what it means where it says in the article "The couple joined their then solicitors Conor O’Reilly and Frank Egan, practising as Egan O’Reilly solicitors, as a third party defendant to the proceedings".What's the meaning of this.

It means they attached the solicitors to the court case so in court they could use the, "it wasnt us, it was them" defence whilst pointing furiously at them.

coylemj

In fact the nuns were looking for a remedy rather than compensation so the effect of joining the solicitors to the action was that they (the solicitors) were ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

I imagine he will now pursue them for damages because of the expense he went to in building a bedroom that is now effectively a storage room with no natural light and a bathroom attached to it.

Ken.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

It means they brought them in as like a co-defendant rather than being sued by the nuns and then suing the solicitors.

Ok i think i got it now. The nuns sued the solicitors to put stuff right(because they didn't tell the owner). Is that correct.

Procrastastudy

ken wrote: »

Ok i think i got it now. The nuns sued the solicitors to put stuff right(because they didn't tell the owner). Is that correct.

Nope the nuns sued the owners - the owners then said "wasn't us it was them" and joined the solicitors in the action.

Example: You drive without insurance and kill someone's puppy - Puppy owner sues MIBI (a scheme set up so that victims of uninsured drivers don't go uncompenstated) and MIBI join you in the action because they think you should be paying for it.

Ken.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Nope the nuns sued the owners - the owners then said "wasn't us it was them" and joined the solicitors in the action.

Now i'm lost again. Why didn't the owners join the nuns then if it was the solicitors fault. Why join the side that f***ed you over. Or does "join" mean something else in legal terms?.

NoQuarter

ken wrote: »

Now i'm lost again. Why didn't the owners join the nuns then if it was the solicitors fault. Why join the side that f***ed you over. Or does "join" mean something else in legal terms?.

The nuns did nothing wrong so cant be joined as defendants.

The solicitors were the negligent ones. BUT the nuns sued the house owners.

The house owners thought, well wait a minute, it wasnt our fault, it was the solicitors fault because they should have told us we couldnt open a window.

So they ask their Barrister to do a little legal magic and go into court and tell the judge that it wasnt the house owners fault, it was actually the solicitors fault so the judge then orders the solicitors to be "joined" as second defendents.

Then on the court day, the nuns sue the owners, the owners in turn say it was the solicitors fault and thn the judge decides.

Ken.

Now i understand. Thanks for that NoQuarter and Procrastastudy.

ResearchWill

ken wrote: »

Ok i think i got it now. The nuns sued the solicitors to put stuff right(because they didn't tell the owner). Is that correct.

No the Nuns sued the owner of the house. The owner of the house then joined their solicitors, because they would never have built the extension if the solicitor had informed them of the issue, the solicitor should have been aware as they had sight of all the title documents.

As someone else has said the couple may now sue the solicitor as they have a useless extension.

Procrastastudy

A bit of an aside but in general (first year law student terms) you want to sue as many people as possible. There's a case - I forget the name - where a guy at work was run over by a fork lift truck driver. He sued the company and it turned out the fork lift truck driver was a contractor - so he lost and couldn't 'try again'. Thats something completely different but it reinforces the point its not always A sues B.

What he should have done is sued the company, the driver, the fork lift people - basically everyone he can think of - my understanding (probably wrong) is it gets sorted out amongst the defendants.

NoQuarter

Procrastastudy wrote: »

A bit of an aside but in general (first year law student terms) you want to sue as many people as possible. There's a case - I forget the name - where a guy at work was run over by a fork lift truck driver. He sued the company and it turned out the fork lift truck driver was a contractor - so he lost and couldn't 'try again'. Thats something completely different but it reinforces the point its not always A sues B.

What he should have done is sued the company, the driver, the fork lift people - basically everyone he can think of - my understanding (probably wrong) is it gets sorted out amongst the defendants.

Before you do this you need to send whats called "O'Byrne" letters to each possible defendant. The letters call on all defendents to step forward and exonarate the other defendants.

Only after these letters are sent and there is a failure to exonerate the others, costs will be paid by the unsuccessful defendants.

Kosseegan

coylemj wrote: »

I think the_syco is relying on the legal principle of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' - if the OP can have side windows facing his neighbour's house, why can't the neighbour have the same?

If the OP's side windows have planning permission then it's inconceivable that his neighbour would have permission refused to install the same feature because that would establish the principle that if two neighbours had blank gable end walls facing each other, the first one to install end windows would trump the other from doing the same.

If the OP objects on the basis of invasion of privacy, the neighbour can counter that the problem can be solved by the OP bricking up his existing side windows!

There is no such legal principle as 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander. The o/p had windows in first. There is no breach of privacy. If the neighbour now puts in windows there is a breach of privacy, which will be prevented. the o/p is doing nothing wrong and will not lose her windows.

Procrastastudy

Not sure anyone has said this yet so I'll chime in again. While it may now seem you might indeed had something to pursue it might be worth pausing to wonder if you should.

There are various stories of feuding neighbours and rarely is there a happy ending. Are these windows that big a deal? If so get in contact with a solicitor. If not perhaps you could try having another word - something to the effect of - maybe your neighbour could put up curtains and close them in the evenings.

elckids

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Not sure anyone has said this yet so I'll chime in again. While it may now seem you might indeed had something to pursue it might be worth pausing to wonder if you should.

There are various stories of feuding neighbours and rarely is there a happy ending. Are these windows that big a deal? If so get in contact with a solicitor. If not perhaps you could try having another word - something to the effect of - maybe your neighbour could put up curtains and close them in the evenings.

thanks for the comments, indeed I agree, this issue should have been able to solve out properly with proper discussion/agreement before any actions taken, but now no way to give up...

elckids

the_syco wrote: »

Did your house come with a side garden in it's original state, or did you put it in yourself? If the latter, did you apply for permission, etc, etc?

Yes, my house come with a small side garden in its original state, and the same with the windows in my house. actually it's a new house.

coylemj

Kosseegan wrote: »

There is no such legal principle as 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

You don't say! Irony is obviously lost on you.

FreudianSlippers

Kosseegan wrote: »

There is no such legal principle as 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

What about "he who seeks equity must do equity" - that sort of fits!?