http://burningissues.org/health-effects.html

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/woodsmoke_health_effects_jan07.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/

Posted By: Mikeee5This thread is certainly a wealth of knowledge now.

Also an example to all of courage, high morals values, commitment not to mention pig-headedness and, if it kills you, stupidity. Don't tarry with your Court of Human Rights action Mikee; I just don't see you getting this fixed any other way.

I have just created a Google account and uploaded 3 videos of the smoke descending over my backdoor and conservatory. The smoke has been highlighted in a security light that is situated on the fascia boards of my Dormer.

Feel free to comment on here as always but please refrain from commenting on the videos on the YouTube channel if you have a google account.


Mikeee5


https://www.youtube.com/watch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

this is link.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/24/section/1

Mikeee, re the ECHR, am I right in thinking that you have to take the UK Government as defendant? You certainly can't take individuals to the ECHR. Or can u take the local authority to it?

It might be worth doing but I don't see how it will stop the smoke any time soon. You'll presumably have an order that says whether or not the UK government has put proper systems in place.

This is certainly one of the most interesting threads on here.

Dave

Section 82 was dealt with in earlier posts and Mike was sent a bunch of stuff I used when I successfully prosecuted a nuisance under the Act.

Back then, if the other party was Legal Aided (not sure of the position now things have been changed) you could find yourself up against a QC in court - I did!

Whilst the process under Section 82 isn't onerous, it can be daunting and you really need to be on top of your case and not inclined to allow yourself to be intimidated by smart-ass solicitors or mind-game-playing QCs. In my case I found that I actually knew more about this rather obscure section of the law than either of the clowns I came up against - solicitor in the preliminary hearing and QC at the actual hearing - because I had been given unlimited access to the Act and associated 'guidance' by a sympathetic officer in the local Environmental Protection department. At one point, the defendant's solicitor, finally cracking at my third challenge on a point of law, stood up with a theatrical sigh and asked the court if it was prepared to continue to "put up with these constant challenges from the other party". The Clerk leant across her desk and speaking directly at him said: "Yes, because he's right!"

I had a sheaf of photocopied pages from the Act, the solicitor had none, the QC had a print-out he'd obviously got off the internet.

Section 82 is NOT a common action for all the reasons given above, which is why the legal establishment isn't too familiar with it. I doubt many legal firms would have the Act, together with all its guidance, in its library, whereas the Local Authority would have it there as a matter of course because the issues it deals with are central to their activities - or should be.

Mikeee5

Instead of wasting time why dont you accept you have an ignorant neighbor and do something practical about it.

http://www.ieabcc.nl/workshops/task32_2011_graz_aerosols/06_Hartmann.pdf

http://oekosolve.com/joomla/oekosolve/index.php/en/

This is the sort of solution we have to use on a commercial basis I dont see any reason why it wont work on a domestic basis.

Sorry to be so harsh but if your waiting for the authorities to do anything about it you will probably have died from smoke inhalation. Just remind yourself of the date at the start of this thread.

For £305 you can get a DPF for a Merc.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Diesel-Particulate-Filter-Mercedes-Sprinter-2-1-CDi-DPF-Replacement/120655714920?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140122125356%26meid%3D34fab203ed4043ad88275555bc78b1c5%26pid%3D100005%26prg%3D20140122125356%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D200550824438&rt=nc
So these could be fitted as standard for about 10% more I would think. This does assume the technology is similar.

The up to 40kW one (oekosolve) was 1600 Euros. I would want one if it weren't so expensive. Great idea Renewable, Ta.

Uses 40W when working (automatic on-off). The neighbour would have to agree to it being fitted, to the extra cleaning, the electricity repayment would need sorting and it isn't pretty.....still if it is that or dying or moving house at least that is a third choice, setting aside the much less likely 4th choice of having a court force him to throw out his Wood burner or fit one himself before the health effects are terminal. ST - what have you been sniffing !!

The chimney filters look an excellent idea. I guess it would be difficult to argue that you had used “best practicable means ” until one of these has been fitted!

I contacted the local magistrates court about 1 year ago about the Section 82 and they advised me not to go down this route. I wouldn`t like to expand on this at the moment

Mikeee5

I thought you were going to say "for living next door to Alice" then mate!

Do the filters remove the pungent fumes too?

Mikeee5

Ed, my case was back in 2002. I can assure you that credible information sufficient to support a legal argument wasn't generally available back then - anywhere. The QC had two pages of print-out, I had a folder an inch thick!

What proved the most valuable was the case history, complete with notes. If I'd had to rely on the Act alone I doubt I would have got past the preliminary hearing, despite having studied law for two years, albeit as part of a business degree, because it was ALL about confidence and at least appearing as if you knew what you were talking about, not just spouting sections from the Act without "commentary".

Be assured that as that was the first time I'd ever set foot inside a courtroom I was bricking it on both occasions, although less so at the second session (despite the QC), having been quietly congratulated by the Clerk on the way I had presented both the case and myself, and I say that only to emphasise that there is more to fighting cases like this than relying on the justice of your case, it's as much about theatre as your ability to cite the Act. That was a piece of wisdom passed to me by a police officer friend, who said the same principles apply whether you're addressing magistrates or a jury. Judges are apparently a different kettle of fish.

But I passed all this on to Mike when this thread first kicked off and he's the one who needs the advice.

Sorry gang, got brain freeze again. Can anyone complete the missing link. Cause a statutory nuisance or the nuisance is likely to reoccur. I've read it somewhere but can't think where!

Mikeee5

I think that`s probably it Ed Thanks. I seem to think that I have seen it written in a different text somewhere. I`ll have a look back through the thread when I get chance see if it will jog my memory.

Cheers

Mikeee5

Well done Mikeee, so sorry it has taken so long, hopefully we will all get a result next year.