Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


widget @ surfing-waves.com




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




  1.  
    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.
  2.  
    Posted By: Peter_in_Hungary
    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.


    Peter

    The reason I said wiser was because I thought it was a no go having an extractor in the same room as a woodstove. Certainly with a Dunsley your not allowed to put an extractor in the same room as the woodstove.
    As for Mikee I believe your right unless Mikee has control of the filter. Dont think there is a passive fix for someone determined to burn rubbish.
  3.  
    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
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2018 edited
     
    I've got to finalise the agreement shortly. The brickwork to the stack is in poor condition! Would it be aceptable for a bricklayer to state if the existing chimney is in a substantial enough condition to take the weight of an extra meter of brickwork or should this be done by a specialist structural enginneer?

    I also have a chance to alter the wording of the agreement. Has anyone got any suggestions regarding a Claus in the event the recommendations do not solve the problem? Unfortunately I don't have any other option than to sign the agreement.

    Thank you for your continued support.

    Mikeee5
  4.  
    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
  5.  
    Think 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.
  6.  
    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)
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2018
     
    I had quite a lengthy chat with my solicitor last week. He's explained the situation and I understand what he is saying. Basically it's not possible to include a trial period in the agreement. It's a nuisance case and the expert witnesses have provided a solution to remedy the problem. The agreement is for my neighbours to extend the chimney and run and fuel the stove in line with the DEFRA exemption. The agreement brings a close to my nuisance claim. However if the alterations fail to stop the problem then I have the right to start a new claim. It's in my neighbours interest to fuel and operate the stove correctly and keep their smoke to an absulute minium. 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. He seemed quite keen to start a new case if required.
  7.  
    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.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2018
     
    It is Nick, but we are being guided by the experts and if the alterations fail to work my neighbours will have done all the remedial alterations that they could practically do, the next step would be to stop using the stove. I've been looking into the chimney filters and from what I can gather they are only effective when the fire gets up to a hot temperature. So all the start up and refuelling smoke will still be the same.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2018
     
    '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.
  8.  
    Wot tony said +1

    In addition - how do you determine success or failure of 'the solution' Some measurable standards would need to be included otherwise all you will get is a debate about whether it is a (partial) success or a (partial) failure. For this perhaps get the (average) background figures from your data collection and then a not to be exceeded acceptable %age above that.

    Does the 'expert' have any liability for their proposed solution - and would any liability be real or would they just have egg on their face!?
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2018
     
    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.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2018
     
    did they pay your fees?
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2018
     
    No, my home insurance has covered my costs. I would estimate to be in the same region!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2018
     
    Will your home insurance pay out for the second claim?
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2018
     
    Absolutely Steamy. My solicitor has confirmed that his fees would be funded by my insurers if we have to start a fresh case.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2018
     
    Nice —. Hopefully won’t be needed

    Even more of a landmark case but I can foresee it being excluded from insurance policies like floors are now.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2018 edited
     
    Why are floors excluded Tony?
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2018
     
    Because the fail occasionally, even concrete ground bearing slabs and insurance companies have had to gough up too often.
    • CommentAuthordb8000
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2018
     
    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2018 edited
     
    Posted By: db8000A Tomlin Order is a settlement between the parties that is endorsed by the court.
    As it is just between individuals, what happens if one of them move and a new owner comes along. Does that mean the Tomlin Order is void?
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2018
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeaAs it is just between individuals

    What other possibility is there?
    • CommentAuthordb8000
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2018
     
    A Tomlin Order is just an agreement between parties that is endorsed by the Court to end proceedings.

    It could be made binding on future owners if it contains a requirement to enter into a deed of restrictive covenant which is then registered at the Land Registry.

    The restrictive covenant would state the Owner X covenants not to light fires/ use the stove. It could be not to use the stove unless.... the unless being the remedial action that would make the WBS acceptable.

    You would never get a court order binding on successors in that way, so there would be little incentive for Mikeee’s neighbour to agree to that.
    • CommentAuthorTimSmall
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2018
     
    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.
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2018 edited
     
    That's interesting to know Tim. That means there could be scope to increase the chimney if the existing structure is deemed to be unsafe and could not carry the extra weight of brickwork.

    Thanks for the information on the Tomlin order Dave, good to see you back on the thread. Interesting 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. That wood put us back to square 1. !!
  9.  
    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. !!
    :bigsmile::bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthorMikeee5
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2018
     
    You "wood" have thought so Peter :bigsmile:
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press