Ramsey Street has its fair share of neighbourhood problems
I am fortunate to have great neighbours. I could not bear the thought of us having disputes over petty issues – but some do and it can cause considerable stress and bitterness.
How are they resolved? They usually end up in court facing what can be a lengthy legal and costly process if an agreement cannot be reached and matters escalate out of control.
Michelle reports on how Australia plans to introduce a Neighbourhood Court to settle these disputes, following in the footsteps of Livability Courts in the USA. The issues it deals with includes barking dogs, overgrown gardens and parking problems. The judge in this report even set up court in a trailer to pass judgement – you can’t get more neighbourly than that!
“From unkept yards to the unpleasant smell of sewage, the court tackles the minute misdemeanors that seem trivial to all but those experiencing these everyday nuisances.”
I think these courts make sense, we need to consider how devastating neighbourhood disputes can be if they are allowed to get out of control. I would like to see them provide a concilitory service, with court action a last resort.
Update: Iain Dale is enthused by the concept of Neighbourhood Courts and has given my post a plug on his site which, as we all know, is read by David Cameron, as well as thousands of others. Thanks Iain.
I think this might actually be a godo idea Ellee. If done properly so that local people run the show it would be a very good way of encouraging local participation, consequentially, that would probably help to create cohesiveness that is lacking these day. I’m sure such a scheme could have a positive impact on anti-scoial behaviour not because it would deal with it per se but because communities would ahve ashared ownership in their surrounding resulting, potentially at least, in less anti-social acts.
I like the idea. It would get people to discuss things like adults and sort them out, rather than running to the authorities.
In fact any community could start such a system simply based on good neighbourliness. Failure to agree would always leave the legal route open anyway.
We should go back to the old way which our friends across the pond actually still use in rural areas – an elected Justice of the Peace for the instant (i.e., you got a problem, you wake the JP at 2 in the morning if necessary) dispensation of justice. Just make it so that a JP is an official part of the legal hierachy so that the police have to enforce his/her will and the will of the community affected. My thoughts on the matter.
There is a fine line to be walked between solving genuine disputes and engaging in the kind of nonsense that gives homeowners’ associations such a bad name.
If someone’s lawn is full of rubbish and vermin, there is an issue. If someone’s lawn is untidy, there isn’t. If your neighbour’s untidy lawn is affecting your life, maybe you should offer to mow it for him.
Mediation is what is used here at the moment. However, both parties must agree to attend the meetings for it to work. More often than not the person who is creating the problem usually refuses to attend, hence the problem is on going.
I must say, i am against the vigilante “home owners association” type system, i think it creates more of a problem.
I am for the livibility courts where a magistrate decides. Of course one must keep in mind that ridiculous claims of unkept gardens etc would be disregarded, but genuine matters such as continual noise,150 cats living in a 2 roomed house, a huge tree whose roots are cracking the slab of the neighbors home etc would be decided.