Posted By: renewablejohnAs for comments of extractors interfering with the woodstove I thought GBF posters where wiser than that with sealed buildings and woodstoves with external air supplies.

Please don't confuse wood stoves with external air supplies and room sealed wood stoves. External air supply wood stoves can be (probably will be) affected by extractors whereas room sealed wood stoves probably won't be. (until you open the door to reload) It all depends on the negative pressure created by the extractor.

Back to Mikes (the OP) problem, I would expect that putting a filter on the neighbours chimney will make no difference what so ever as evidence as reported here would indicate that the neighbour has no interest in behaving responsibly and so the only solution IMO would be a passive fix i.e. one that works by design without any operational intervention by the owner.

Posted By: renewablejohnDont think there is a passive fix for someone determined to burn rubbish.

The passive fix would be a chimney that carried the emissions up and away (OK to dispurse and pollute, diluted, elsewhere - no different to any other stove) and this IMO can only be acheived by increasing the height until the problem is solved - or stop using the stove.

Posted By: renewablejohnThe reason I said wiser was because I thought it was a no go having an extractor in the same room as a woodstove.

Same applies over here, although over here it is not the same room but the same air space and an internal door is not counted as separating the air space

An experienced bricklayer should be able to say if it is possible to add an extra 1m of brickwork to the chimney BUT they will not be insured to make that decision and if anything happens in the next storm - good luck with getting any damages!

A structural engineer should pass their opinion in writing, especially if there is any chance of any of the chimney landing on your property. If the chimney looks doubtful I would expect the structural engineer to state that the chimney should be taken down to good brickwork, probably below roof line and rebuilt. I would not be surprised if they also specified a reinforced render to be applied

I would also expect the requirement that the chimney should be lined (if it does not already have one) as the additional height will cause additional cooling (due to extra exposure to cold) and this could cause condensates to precipitate out causing chimney blockage or reduced performance.

If you are forced to sign the agreement you should IMO insist on wording such as

In the event that the proposed extension to the chimney by 1m fails to fully and completely resolve the problem of nuisance emissions from the chimney in question then this agreement will become null and void

Posted By: renewablejohnThink you need to include a clause to state what monitoring device is installed with the proposed chimney and in the event that a pre-determined improvement is not reached then the electrostatic filter will be installed into the new chimney extension again monitored so that you know whether they switch the filter on or not.

I would not want to give them any suggestion of putting up a solution that may work if they switch it on but makes no difference to the problem if the item is switched off or not maintained. (A bit too much like the VW diesel emissions testing for my liking)

IMO what is needed is a chimney that works on its own (or a stove that isn't used)

Mikeee, I can see what you are saying, but if it fails and needs a new action, then it plainly wasn't 'a solution to remedy the problem.'

Yes, it is 'in my neighbours interest to fuel and operate the stove correctly and keep their smoke to an absulute minium.' But an 'absolute minimum' does not necessarily solve your problem.

'My legal bod has confirmed that the next step for them would be to stop using the stove if the alterations fail to solve the problem.'

I guess that's the fail-safe.

'My legal bod has confirmed that the next step for them would be to stop using the stove if the alterations fail to solve the problem.'

For goodness sake make very sure that that is written in to the agreement.

I don’t like the vagueness of the language, minimal, how can anyone prove “in line with DEFRA...” , and ‘absolute minimum’ —- what does that mean —- zilch.

I can imagine he would be keen to strart a new case, he is presumably getting paid ... to fail!

I am rooting for a solution but really wish it was cast in stone.

I still think this a landmark case and it should have clear implications for many others in similar predicaments.

The benchmark is zero fumes in my back garden, home and outbuildings, these are the words of my solicitor. This is what the nuisance case was against and what has to stop. It's me that said it's in my neighbours best interest to create as little smoke as possible. It's cost them around £20,000 to date. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to risk running up another bill in legal costs by going back to chucking any old crap on the fire that they can get their hands on.

No, my home insurance has covered my costs. I would estimate to be in the same region!

Absolutely Steamy. My solicitor has confirmed that his fees would be funded by my insurers if we have to start a fresh case.

Why are floors excluded Tony?

Evening all. Not been round these parts for 18 months it appears. I discovered Twitter. Given it up again. First thread I look for was this one. I'm glad to hear it's getting there, albeit at a glacial pace. Just a few thoughts having read up to date.

KB1 was fun. I missed that first time round. Perhaps its good to ruffle a few feathers occasionally.

The solicitor acts for Mikeee. All his/her professional obligations are to Mikeee and the court. The insurance company will have a separate contract with Mikeee (the policy) which states that it will only cover reasonable actions in relation to the proceedings. If a reasonable solution presents itself, Mikeee must take it or carry on paying himself.

The last thing I wrote back in May 2016 was that the Tomlin Order must enable Mikeee to take further proceedings if the solution (whatever it is) fails. It seems this is the case - and that is normal.

A Tomlin Order is a settlement between the parties that is endorsed by the court. The alternative is a full hearing. That is stressful, almost beyond belief. The Court will expect the parties to try to settle - the court rules are clear on that. Mikeee is not caving in by settling.

Getting a permanent injunction to prevent the neighbour from using the stove at all is unlikely i think, therefore it is right to consider settling with the neighbouring carrying out works that will hopefully (according to experts) solve it.

Nuisance can occur even if something is built entirely to regulation. re-starting a claim should actually be much easier. the paperwork is largely drafted!

Finally this is not a landmark case. it sets no precedent whatsoever in the legal world. a settlement between parties is firstly private and even if it went to a full hearing, a first instance judgment is not a binding precedent.

Dave.

Posted By: SteamyTeaAs it is just between individuals

What other possibility is there?

In case it's useful - if a brick-built chimney isn't practical, the Isokern chimney system allows you to add steel reinforcement at the corners to build high and/or in high wind areas.

Posted By: Mikeee5Interesting point Steamy has made about new neighbours in the future, wouldn't be good if someone moved in and started chucking crap on the fire.

Surely your neighbour would /wood have to declare the problem to prospective purchasers if the proposal did not fix the problem

Posted By: Mikeee5That wood put us back to square 1. !!

Bad news here. I have just had a visit from the builder who the neighbours have contracted to carry out the alterations to the chimney. Unfortunately he is a well known local rogue trader, he is well known to the Trading Standards and pictures of his van and list of complaints are all over facebook!! He has tried to convince me that it will be ok just to re-point the existing stack, so no proper inspection has been carried out by a structural engineer. Not sure where we go from here!!

Mikeee5