Another observation (I've not read up since before Christmas!
All the info about smoke and autism and other places banning fires is all irrelevant to your case. Your case turns on whether your neighbour's activities are causing a nuisance.

It needs to be all about the effect on your health and property and proving it's from next door.

Corroboration of the issue from others will help greatly.

Posted By: db8000I've no ECHR experience, but I thought you could only sue a country, not individuals or even LAs. I may be wrong.

As a lay person who went to the ECHR (and won) during my readup prior to submitting my case my understanding is that - Yes you can only sue a country and not an individual but the divested authorities of that country are part of the country - so LAs are fair game

Speeding ticket = criminal. If you're going fast enough you'll end up in the magistrates! They're lay judges (i.e. no legal background, though they will have had training to be a judge). Indeed our local Tesco security guard got a farewell spread in the local rag after he retired after many years working also as a magistrate.

Nuisance = civil courts, almost certainly will be heard by a district judge (or deputy DJ).

The judge will be a lawyer, probably a solicitor. Whilst the court office try to match cases to district judges' expertise, there are no guarantees. Mikeee may find himself with a DJ that normally does family court work and knows very little about property law. DJs will have had training to be a judge but not necessarily in the law.

Therefore, the claimant must be prepared to present the law as well as his/her facts.

Previous cases (precedents) are essential in most cases of this type. The judge will expect the claimant (and defendant) to provide the relevant information about the case and why the precedent applies.

Litigants in person (LiP) - people who represent themselves - are given some leeway by the judge. However that will not stretch so far that the judge will make out the LiP's case for them. I don't actually know what happens if both parties are LiPs, they don't know the law and nor does the judge!

Represented parties will be expected to provide a full case - law, facts and cogent arguments. They will be held to a higher standard and the judge will not help them. This can seem quite harsh when your opponent is getting the help and you're not but that's the way it is.

The judge may give the decision there and then or after a short recess. It is rarer that a judgment is reserved to another day but if the judge feels that he or she cannot make the decision because they wish to reflect or carry out some research themselves, they can do so.

Posted By: slidersx200what fuel is put in it

No! That can't be right! Good fuel does not prevent the fumes going into the house, it is just that the fumes won't be so obvious, however, they will contain the same number of PM2.5s and be equally deadly eventually. This case must be about the flue and the local micro-environment meaning the existing flue is inadequate, indeed possibly any reasonable effort to make it better may also be inadequate. Getting him told off for using the wrong fuel would be a disaster IMO.

We all enjoy good food, good wine and a nice warm fire to warm our feet. I would suggest that if your neighbour then tossed the empty food wrappers, the empty wine bottle and the ash over your fence, you would not be impressed and feel hard done to.

Same applies here - it's fine to enjoy the fire, but because you are not disposing of the smoke properly it's ending up in my house, that is what I object to.

Haven't read the whole thread, but it suspect the key point is that the burden of proof is on you to prove nuisance, not on your neighbours to prove lack of nuisance. In that sense it may not hinge at all on what your neighbours say, because the only relevant issue is what's happening in your house re smoke levels - about which they can presumably say nothing.

For the nuisance value of smoke levels in your house you will need hard evidence, preferably independent, not only of the level of nuisance but also confirming the source of the smoke. If next door's smoke can really set off smoke detectors in your house, an independent person of standing (who's word the judge would trust) who witnessed this happening might be useful evidence. (Obviously they would have to vouch that there wasn't any other source of smoke at the time etc).

Mikeee - I suggest you go back and edit your first post and stick this in the members only section. Makes no difference to your avid followers/contributors but could prevent an accidental find on the part of the defence, if you know what I mean.

Does anyone know if you get steam from a chimney at night when burning wood during sub zero temperatures?

Mikeee5

If the wood burning stove is being operated correctly (dry wood and high temperature) there will be no visible smoke of any kind.

When starting up you can get smoke for a few minutes, quite a lot of which will be water vapour and you can get some on reloading, when the burn temperature drops.

Night and low temperatures won't have any effect on the stove's emissions.

I have captured the chimney smoking for over 1 hour via my CCTV. It was a cold still night and the "smoke " went up to about 10 metres and then curved and started heading back to ground. I noticed that there is a chimney serving a gas appliance in the background puffing a bit of steam and this does evaporate very quickly. I would say the steam plume disappeared within a couple of metres.

sounds like smoke is being emitted from the wood burner, with the gas flue in the same shot conclusive comparable and irrevocable evidence, wd M

It is doubly incriminating because if it isn't smoke then it is steam and lots of it proving wet wood or other inappropriate fuel

Perhaps he used a sensitive infra red sensor to check for smoke.....hmm on the other hand perhaps he likes your neighbours' whiskey.

It appears that 2 out of the 4 visits that the Environmental Health Officer made on "my neighbours property" (to investigate the smoke and fumes on my property) were made in November Between 20.00 hrs and 21 hrs. What can you deduce from that my friend?

He didn't take any pictures because it was dark.

You guys are correct on all accounts. It was dark, no equipment to measure particulate matter and he was tucking into my neighbours Jack Daniels 😀

The best news is I've had confirmation from the Information Commissioners Office that I can present the Freedom Of Information bumf in court as part of my evidence. Not only has the EH officer never been on my property when the fire has been lit, two of his visits took place in the dark!