I haven't looked at the tweets, but you should understand that even opinion and factual comments can be defamatory. The test is whether they are true or not.

However, you may have an action in nuisance against them for wrongfully interference with your peaceful enjoyment of your land.

Think I have just found your tweets - only took a search for Leisure Centre Noise

 

No worries there - purely opinion and factual - can't even see much that could be called derogatory either.

 

As stated previously - keep a record and recordings to back up your views.

The last entry I made was 10th March under the name johnjordan100 as I was hoping for a gesture from them in return. Silly me.

I haven't looked at the tweets, but you should understand that even opinion and factual comments can be defamatory. The test is whether they are true or not.

 

However, you may have an action in nuisance against them for wrongfully interference with your peaceful enjoyment of your land.

Everything I wrote was true as I have always worked to the principle that once I am caught lying or exaggerating then I will never be listened too again.

If the school is controlled by a public authority then they cannot take action for defamation (Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers (1993))

If the school is controlled by a public authority then they cannot take action for defamation (Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers (1993))

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/18.html

The public authority cannot, but the individuals controlling it could.

For a school funded by the local authority : would the school governors be prevented by that case from taking action for defamation?

None the less, as others have already noted, if what the OP has tweeted is demonstrably true : that is an absolute defence to a defamation action.

Defamation Act 2013, S2(1).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/2/enacted

It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.

Everything I wrote was true as I have always worked to the principle that once I am caught lying or exaggerating then I will never be listened too again.

Wise!, and preserving your defence of "it is true".

Is this the school whose website notes (for the artificial grass pitch part funded by the Football Foundation):

Available for community use from 6pm - 10pm during the week and 8am - 10pm at weekends.

and that is for hire "from £22.00" per hour?

If it (+\- the car park) were being used during weekdays for school activities, I can see how you saying "14 hours a day, seven days a week" could be accurate.

Did the increase in use happen suddenly? Gradually? In stages??

Has the school considered options to mitigate the impact in your property (double glazing to reduce noise [may not help in summer when the pitch is likely to be used later if you need to have your windows open], earth banking / fencing to cut down on noise.......)

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/18.html

 

The public authority cannot, but the individuals controlling it could.

 

For a school funded by the local authority : would the school governors be prevented by that case from taking action for defamation?

 

None the less, as others have already noted, if what the OP has tweeted is demonstrably true : that is an absolute defence to a defamation action.

 

Defamation Act 2013, S2(1).

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/2/enacted

From the Derbyshire judgment:

"There are, however, features of a local authority which may be

regarded as distinguishing it from other types of corporation, whether trading

or non-trading. The most important of these features is that it is a

governmental body. Further, it is a democratically elected body, the electoral

process nowadays being conducted almost exclusively on party political lines.

It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected

governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to

uninhibited public criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must

inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech."

A local authority could not pay or contribute towards the costs of bringing an action by a member or officer and yes, in my view, this would similarly prevent an action being brought by the Governing Body.

Entirely agree though, truth is a defence, but rather avoid the potentially ruinous costs simply by cutting them off at the first hurdle.

numerous thread merged for history

dx

From the Derbyshire judgment:

 

"There are, however, features of a local authority which may be

regarded as distinguishing it from other types of corporation, whether trading

or non-trading. The most important of these features is that it is a

governmental body. Further, it is a democratically elected body, the electoral

process nowadays being conducted almost exclusively on party political lines.

It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected

governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to

uninhibited public criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must

inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech."

 

A local authority could not pay or contribute towards the costs of bringing an action by a member or officer and yes, in my view, this would similarly prevent an action being brought by the Governing Body.

 

Entirely agree though, truth is a defence, but rather avoid the potentially ruinous costs simply by cutting them off at the first hurdle.

From the same case

A publication attacking the activities of the authority will

necessarily be an attack on the body of councillors which represents the controlling party, or on the executives who carry on the day to day management of its affairs. If the individual reputation of any of these is wrongly impaired by the publication any of these can himself bring

proceedings for defamation. Further, it is open to the controlling body to defend itself by public utterances and in debate in the council chamber.

So "the school governors" (as a body, if a "public authority") can't take action for defamation, but an individual governor, if they felt their individual reputation defamed, could.

"Truth" would still be an absolute defence, though.

Yes, yes and yes, in my view - my point was that an action by an individual could not be supported by the corporate body and so renders that prospect extremely unlikely.

I have lived next to a school since 1986. Between then and 2009 we never had a problem with the school accepting that it was there and that there would be noise during the normal school day, much the same as moving next to a church and hearing the church bells. Between 1986 and 2009 we never had any cause to complain about the school in any form whatsoever.

However in 2009 they built a massive sports hall behind my garden which totally blocked the views over open countryside we had previously enjoyed. Coupled with that was the noise that came from the hall during the day with 200+ children screaming plus the maniacal shouting of the PE teacher. The hall was then thrown open for community use until 8.30pm every night of the year including Christmas day although in fairness it has not been used on that day so far.

Then in 2013 they installed a full size 3G football pitch behind the sports hall and a car park, the entrance road of which is just 6 metres from my rear garden and we have to suffer up to 100 vehicle movements during the evenings plus the noise of car radios, social gatherings in the car park, kids playing football in the car park and general engine revving and door slamming.

Last year they applied for and got planning permission to extend the hours of use of the sports hall until 10pm each evening and they have now lodged a planning application to have music in the sports hall and to have all doors and windows open whilst it is in use.

All of this has now made my house virtually unsaleable, even these we buy any house dot com companies do not want to know.

My house has been on the market for over 2 years and everyone who has viewed has said about the noise.

I don't know what to do or who to turn to for help. The local council don't want to know, the environmental health dept. put a microphone in my garden for 2 weeks but said there was no problem, but as the council also made an investment in the 3G pitch I suppose they would say that.

I desperately want to sell the house but this school has made it impossible.

Help!!!

Hi johnjordan

Please be patient I am sure the caggers will be along to offer there wisdom.

Have you put any objections in about the different planning applications?

Have you spoken/written to your Local Councillor and MP on this issue?

Thanks for your speedy reply.

Yes I have put objections forward and contacted my local councillors and MP.

threads merged yet again.

dx

DX,

I can only apologise for this. In all honesty for some reason I did not see any of the posts after No. 28. I wish I had in relation to posts on Twitter as I have since made an appointment with a solicitor for the same advice and could have saved my money.

Apologies again and thanks to the caggers who probably thought I was ignoring them.

Are your neighbours having the same problem ? If so, then why not group together and put forward a complaint to the Local Council. Might work better than simply doing it individually.

Yes, we've done that. The problem now is that the school sent a letter home with all the pupils asking their parents to send letters to the council supporting the application. Also they got all the pupils to sign their own letters of support so now there are approx. 700 letters of support but only about 10 objections. I should mention that none of the people that support the application live anywhere near the school.

To be fair councils should only accept letters for or against planning applications from people closest to the proposed development but that will never happen.

that's is rather out of order me thinks.

its a bit like giving people free entry to somewhere and they sayin do you want to come free again sign here say you like it...

dx

I understood it was only those people who would be directly affected by plans that were contacted by the planning department ?