Will get some nice sunsets then, not as good as down here looking towards the Scillys/Canada.
http://www.scillywebcam.com/

Not entirely sure why you should go to great expense to "prove" that the smoke is actually prejudicial to your health (ie via the air quality monitoring device). You only have to prove nuisance. That will be by photographs or video and a written statement. You start going down the road of measuring qualitatively and you'll get into an argument about how much of A,B or C is needed to be prejudicial to health, are you qualified to give an opinion on that, is the device calibrated to an accredited standard, are you qualified to use the device, how does the court verify that the readings you produce are from the offending smoke, etc,etc etc. Go down the qualitative road and you need an independent accredited laboratory with an expert witness to present the findings. All you need is a lot of photos with times and dates of the smoke swirling about your house and garden, which even the most narrow minded magistrate could see would affect your enjoyment of your property. Keep it simple or you'll get lost in the fog!

Thank you for your valued points windy, all taken onboard. I just  thought it would be a good idea to prove that the smoke is entering my property but as you have mentioned, to do the job correctly i would have to filter the air and identify the particulates which would be open to all sorts of scrutiny by any defence lawyer. 

On a good note, my solicitor has been in contact with me and he is going to send a letter to my neighbour to confirm that the smoke from his chimney has been damaging to health etc and request that the statutory nuisance is abated without delay. I mentioned the letter to joiner earlier in the week and he has given me some good pointers to include also. Thanks once again for your help j, you are an absolute star. 

Mikeee

I totally agree JSH. I now have 86 videos and images of the smoke the majority of which are showing the smoke blowing downwards and across my property. I also have four photos of blood in my nasal mucus following smoke inhalation. I have also made an appointment to see my GP this afternoon to request a copy of medical records confirming my visits with breathing difficulties and nosebleeds etc.

Mikeee

The medical records have been requested by my solicitor along with my events diary and vids. I don’t think he is going to include everything in his letter though.

Mikeee

Any smoke is intolerable to me Joiner! This is why I think my medical records etc will be valuable information if this goes to court. My consultant has classed me as “Severely Asthmatic” and specifically blames the smoke for the downturn of my breathing capabilities in his correspondence.

The letter from the solicitor has now been posted to my neighbours. He has requested that the nuisance is abated within 21 days or we will seek an abatement order through the county court.

Mikeee

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Brianwilson</cite>I suspect the 'No win no fee' solicitors could see this as a new opportunity Mikee and will be watching with interest. Hoping you reach a quick and satifactory conclusion that protects your health.</blockquote>

Difficult to see how the "no win, no fee" brigade might gain. You cannot normally claim your legal fees back from the party causing the nuisance for the initial work in getting an abatement order.

You might be able to if they dispute things and refuse to abide by the abatement order, but TBH I'm not sure that there would be enough money in it for the no win, no fee brigade to be interested. It would be unlikely for any damages to be awarded without a separate, and probably lengthy, civil case to prove that the nuisance had caused material harm that the courts might then accept as being worthy of recompense.

Proving a direct link between the smoke and any particular health condition will be very hard/expensive.

If you have warned the neighbour about the smoke problem and they continued anyway then there might be a claim for negligence as well.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I do have cover for legal expenses through my home insurance. However,  the solicitor has said that he had to calculate the probability of winning the case to cover the legal expenses that my insurers would have to pay. I guess he must have been talking along the lines of receiving compensation from my neighbours.

Mikeee

It's always worth asking for exemplary damages to give the magistrates something to discount to make the awarding of costs seem more reasonable.

The fact that the nuisance has been allowed to continue despite overwhelming evidence of its existence and despite "all efforts" to mitigate it by fitting the compliant stove, a move proved to be completely ineffective and which the defendants have refused to acknowledge, requires a sanction which can only find expression in monetary terms.

In reality, it's likely that an order will be made to end the nuisance by a return to the status quo pre-wood burning. It's not as if an alternative isn't available because both properties are on mains gas.

My son was up with us for a couple of days earlier in the week and we discussed this matter because he found himself in an identical situation, except that he was the one causing the nuisance. Oil-fired Rayburn, there when they moved in, was causing one of their neighbours exactly the problems described by Mike (my son is coincidentally called Mike also). Unlike Mikeee, Mike turned the stove off until he could get it sorted. Replaced the burners but the problems persisted because Leylandii along the back of his house caused inversion that stopped the fumes being taken away from the neighbour's property, not helped by the neighbour's property being some height above Mike's house, which nestles against a low cliff. Leylandii came down and a cowl fitted to Mike's chimney. Sorted to everyone's satisfaction. Neighbour no longer suffering and Mike better off with a more efficient burn to his Rayburn.

Respect for your son on that one joiner. I wish my neighbours were as considerate. The first time I confronted them about the smoke they gave me every reason under the sun why It was acceptable for them to fill my home with smoke and when I showed them the carbon monoxide monitor beeping they threw more wood on the fire!!

I'll keep you informed of progress. 

Regards 


Mikeee

Good news on the smoke front last night. Smelly cam 1 recorded 2 smoking sessions, both lasted for approximately 6 minutes. Wind from the east also, was enjoyable to have a smoke free evening. 


Smelly cam 2 captured 4 calling birds, 3 French hens, 2 turtle doves and a partridge in my pear tree. Not a crow in sight! Perhaps even Damon will be happy about that. he! he! 

Mikeee 

Before anyone has a go at Brian again about banging on about air quality, listen to that piece.

No, the total emissions from transport has been falling over the past few years as more newer cleaner vehicles come onto our roads. Old vehicles could get banned and ones with faulty engines too.

It is not so much that diesel is bad it is a bit worse than petrol, yes but there is still a problem with petrol car exhaust, it is far from clean.



If we are wanting to ban something then it should be burning wood and biomass

The BBC R4 programme on air pollution in the UK demonises the diesel vehicle but we should also compare diesel vehicle hazardous emissions against other sources such as wood burning. A current proposal for a small wood burning power plant on a Scottish Island is scheduled to create particulate pollution per MW of useful power out equating to 17.7 million diesel vehicle km/day with oxides of nitrogen equating to 1.5m diesel km/day. A standard domestic wood burner is reported to create particulate pollution equivalent to 800km/hr travelled by diesel cars. Very interesting points raised in the prog. I could go on but back to the thread.
Posted by JS Harris
Although the burden of proof needed is only on the "balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" it would still be very hard to positively connect ill health with a smoke nuisance, all you would end up doing is having opposing sets of expert witnesses giving conflicting evidence
JS- There is a wealth of peer reviewed and Gov data confirming direct correlation between exposure to any PM pollution and a variety of health problems , wood burners are known to produce large quantities of avoidable hazardous PM pollution plus a variety of nasties, the only defence I can see is a requirement for proof of the source because the pollution is not labelled. In Mikee’s situation the source would appear obvious , the route of the pollution recordable and the unfortunate result recognised damage to health.
Other Countries appear to take a more pro-active approach to the prevention of air quality degradation with bans on wood burning during difficult weather conditions and I note some states in the U.S. require the smoke to be prevented from crossing the property boundary.
http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml
In trying to find a previous legal precedent for neighbour smoke nuisance in the UK I came across this thread ‘ Neighbour problem with woodburner’ from GBF 2007 .
http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=769&page=1
Sadly no positive outcome at that time . Can only hope the outcome of Mikee’s current ordeal is positive. With the experience and knowledge gained to date plus the available technology to minimise pollution, why do we allow deliberate degradation of air quality in the UK?