In this case, a woman was issued with a legal order banning her from having a bus she was restoring on her drive, because a neighbour claims she could see the top of the bus while she was watching TV. The legal order absorbed the lady’s time and money and prevented her from restoring the bus.
This shows how Community Protection Notices (CPNs) can give tremendous authority to complainants, no matter how irrational their complaints. The CPN ruined not only a lady’s business plan – at substantial financial cost – but also ruined her relations with her neighbours, after the council petitioned them for complaints against her. The case shows significant interference into privacy and property rights: a woman is prevented from parking a vehicle she owns in the drive that she owns. Without the CPN, she would have restored the bus by now and it would be in use as a bar in some other location; instead, the bus is unfinished and still on her driveway. This shows how inappropriate legal interventions can make situations substantially worse, and create problems that would have otherwise been resolved.
Here is the lady’s testimony below….
‘The issue started in March 2023, when I parked a bus that I was renovating on my private driveway. My plan was to convert the bus into a bar/cafe, offering private parties and events. I wanted this to be an investment for my children, giving them an opportunity to work for themselves as they both have a passion for food.
Within 15 minutes of if being parked the man next door appeared to ask if it was a permanent fixture. Within another hour he returned to say that there will be complaints. Over the next few days his wife spoke to me and asked various questions. I told her that I was renovating the bus and that I hoped it would be completed in three months. After that conversation, she reported the bus as abandoned, which resulted in a member of Surrey Heath Borough Council’s Corporate Enforcement Department visiting. The council confirmed via email that there are no planning restrictions, and no further action would be taken.
Two weeks later, I received another email from the council saying that they had received another complaint, this time from a different neighbour. This neighbour cannot see the bus from their position on the road but she is a friend of my next-door neighbour.
I later received another visit from the council. I was told that my neighbour had accused me of not maintaining my garden and not working on the bus. I was working on the bus and had clearly been gardening before their arrival. I showed them the inside of the bus, clearly work had been carried out. Apparently, my neighbour had told them that she didn’t want to see my bus while she was sitting watching TV in the summer.
One of the ladies from the council crouched down and looked through the bushes, she confirmed that she could not see through the hedge and that only the top of the bus would be in view. Therefore, if the neighbour was sitting watching TV she would not see the bus.
Following the visit I received an email from SHBC:
Further to our previous conversations regarding the double decker bus and having visited the site recently with a colleague, I have carried out an objective assessment as to the impact it is having on the locality regarding community impact. The bus is parked on your own private property and there is no legislation available to SHBC to enforce the removal of the bus. It would be treated as a Statutory Off Road Notice (SORN). I am aware that the vehicle is in the process of renovation to use as a business venture, this is clearly underway, and I have seen the evidence myself. SHBC feel that we are not in a position to set a time limit on the renovation, however, I am aware that there are issues with your neighbours so it is advisable to have the work completed as soon as you can. I have notified the complainant of this final decision by SHBC.
Yet a few months later I received a Community Protection Warning (CPW) from the council. It said that if I can’t comply with the order I could get a fixed penalty notice, be prosecuted, or the bus could be destroyed or disposed of. The warning had an impossible timescale, making it extremely challenging to get the bus ready for an MOT to make it legal to drive. I contacted the council to discuss, but they were unhelpful and difficult. Considering that I had it in writing that I was not doing anything wrong and the case was closed, I found the whole situation very frustrating and upsetting.
A few months after this, the CPN arrived. I had no choice but to appeal. I received a court date then a couple of days before the court date a bundle from the council’s solicitors.
The amount of paperwork was unbelievable – the council and the woman next door have clearly been stalking my property. I found out from another neighbour that the council had sent letters out regarding the bus, and my personal information was given out.
The council’s legal representative advised via email the day before the court date that they were basing the claim on the trial concerning the Tate gallery and a nearby glass building. So apparently, I am upsetting the neighbourhood because of the bus height. Now please note the bus had not grown, it has always been the same height. It was the same height when the council said that there was no legislation available to SHBC, the council’s final decision.
On my first trip to court, the council solicitor was late, rude, difficult, he was shaking and sweating. Firstly he accused me of moving the bus illegally, and he accused me of having money as I had my own company. I questioned why the witness statements were not included in their ‘bundle’ to the court, he said he didn’t have to include them. We ended our meeting as we were not getting anywhere, I said I wanted to see the magistrate but he said there was no need and I could leave. I started to leave the building and it dawned on me that this was wrong, so I went back and spoke to the usher who said I should stay and she advised me to go into the Gallery of the courtroom and wait for my case. The solicitor was already there and was shocked to see me walk in. When the lack of witness statements was discussed in front of the magistrate, the council solicitor confessed that there were none, just a couple of emails.
I told the magistrate that I didn’t want the bus on the drive. I explained how the council’s actions had halted my plans. We discussed the period of time I needed to get the bus on the road and into storage to complete the renovation, then a maintenance hearing was booked. Following that first court case I tried to find affordable storage for the bus, but the cost of storage would mean I would not be in a financial position to carry on the work on the bus. Also, after speaking again to the mechanic and looking at MOT booking online, I realised that I had no way of getting it legally on the road in that timescale. So we went back to court.
I received a new bundle from the council’s legal representative, but this time there were 6 witness statements which indicated how the case had been put together. The statements from neighbours were all dated 3 weeks after the initial court case, and all followed the same theme. The paperwork suggested that the council had knocked on doors and visited some of the houses to get people to complain. So there were 4 complainants, 2 of whom had stated previously that they had no issue with the bus, 1 of whom referred to the bus as a Camper Van. There was no mention of the height of the bus and it seemed that parking was a problem.
I live at the end of the road where most of the houses are four bedroomed and there has always been issues with parking as children have grown up and got cars of their own. It’s been that way since I moved here, one resident ran a car repair business from home and this caused additional problems. A complainant’s husband struggled with parking due to his age and eyesight; if I needed to park on the road we ensured that we parked nearer to our drive to give him extra room to manoeuvre, since he had already driven into cars that were parked. The parking has improved as children left home and one resident stopped working from home, but this has become a focal point of complaint again because of the bus. However, the bus being in my private drive has not had an impact on the number of cars parked on the road.
The witnesses were supposed to show their availability to go to court as they would be cross examined, but the respondent’s legal representative failed to provide this information.
The bundle included lots of photos of everything in my drive, most of it irrelevant to the bus. There was correspondence saying that although I was told the case was closed, my neighbour had been told the opposite. There is also a copy of an email that questioned whether my neighbour’s constant emails to the council constituted harassment.
Then the day came to go back to court, this time the solicitor was met by a colleague from the council who was responsible for the case. The meeting went badly again and we went in to see the magistrate. I suggested a meeting at the council’s office, to try to resolve issues instead of taking up the court’s time, and the magistrate agreed.
I explained I had the money to finish the bus, but I needed time. If I put the bus in storage the money is gone. If they continue with the court case then I am putting that money into a solicitor, and the bus will not be done. The magistrate seemed to understand and a court date was set. I would be on trial for a full day – for having a bus legally on my drive that my neighbour doesn’t like the look of.
But when I later reminded SHBC about the meeting, they declined, and changed their solicitor. We were going to court.
On the morning of the trial, I arrived in court, we were put in a side room to discuss the case, the SHBC team were in another room. The council team was saying that after 8 months the bus was still on my drive, and it needed to be moved. They couldn’t comprehend that their actions had caused the delay.
(The council’s solicitor said they were not interested in anything else but the bus being removed. Therefore, the parking issue – which was the main problem for the witnesses – was apparently no longer an issue.)
I reminded them that the CPN meant the bus would not be allowed to park in a residential area in Surrey Heath, and I explained how this would affect my business plan.
The bottom line was if I didn’t agree to move the bus then I would have to go into court and be cross examined. I didn’t want my personal life played out in court, knowing that I would be the victim yet again of local gossip.
I agreed to move the bus, if they agreed to change the wording on parking in a residential area. We agreed I would not have to pay their costs. We went in front of the judge, I explained that the only reason I was dropping the appeal was because it was making me ill, with my family including my 79-year-old father having been bullied by my neighbours.
I don’t know what the future holds, but I do not like my previously loved home, I don’t want to leave the house as I feel bullied, neighbours no longer speak to me or my partner. I have had over a year of sleepless nights, stress and anxiety. My dream of restoring the bus is no longer something that I want to do.
It is the council and my neighbour who have upset the ambiance in the local area, not me. The case has been run on lies, but apparently it doesn’t matter.’