'Eyesore' homeowners ordered to pay £2k

10:42am Thursday 11th October 2012 in News By Catherine Phillips, Reporter

EYESORE: The house in Timberdine Avenue EYESORE: The house in Timberdine Avenue

THE neighbour of a man hit with a second fine for failing to clean up his “building site” home said he did not want him prosecuted.

Kenneth Tolley said he and his wife Caroline wished neighbour Philip Gunwhy would just do the necessary work on 58 Timberdine Avenue instead of facing the courts.

However, Mr Gunwhy was fined £2,000 in his absence at Worcester Magistrates Court on Thursday, October 4, after failing to act on numerous complaints, official notices and court orders.

Mr Tolley, aged 75, described the semi-detached house as a “building site” but had hoped Mr Gunwhy would make improvements following the original £1,100 fine he received in March.

Boarded up windows, large sections of missing rendering from the front of the house and, at times, scaffolding and tarpaulin obscuring the front had caused it to look untidy since 2008.

Mr Tolley, whose home is connected to the property, said: “We have tried to look after our house and had a new roof put on, new fascias fitted and worked on the garden, so to live next door to it is just frustrating. It affects my wife worse than it affects me because I try and ignore a lot of it.

“We are pleased that the planning officers are taking it seriously but we don’t want him prosecuted, we just want him to do some work to the house.”

Worcester City Council issued a section 215 Tidy-up Notice in July 2010, ordering Mr Gunwhy to improve the appearance of the property because it was adversely affecting the amenity of the area.

However, when he ignored the notice he was ordered to pay £1,100 fines by magistrates in March this year.

Planning enforcement officers from the city council visited the house several times since March and sent Mr Gunwhy letters warning him that he would face court if it was not cleaned up.

However, when he failed to take action Mr Gunwhy was summoned to attend magistrates court and fined as well as ordered to pay £500 costs and a £15 victim surcharge in his absence.

A city council spokesman said the case clearly showed how important it was for people to talk to them if they were facing a notice or a summons.

He said: “If Mr Gunwhy had carried out this work, or had responded to the many letters we sent him, this second court case and a second fine could have been avoided.”

Comments(21)

spider666 says...
10:52am Thu 11 Oct 12

Wake up man,it doesn't take a rocket scientist----the fines and costs you are picking up would get the house sorted. ----How dumba** is he being.

Report this post »

Jabbadad says...
4:28pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Why not serve a compulsory purchase order on it, restored this would provide a home for some family who for NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN are living in Bed & Breakfast. then the council or Housing Association would start to recoup the expenses from a reasonable rent.
JOB DONE

Report this post »

thecigarman says...
4:32pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Jabbadad wrote:
Why not serve a compulsory purchase order on it, restored this would provide a home for some family who for NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN are living in Bed & Breakfast. then the council or Housing Association would start to recoup the expenses from a reasonable rent. JOB DONE
spot on

Report this post »

Keith B says...
8:21pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Hang on.

This is somebody's private property - we are not yet in a socialist state where the state owns everything and allocates it to Party supporters.

The nanny state is taking over and is pushing us all into some kind of conformity.

Who is to say that a house with boarding on the window is less pretty than one with that ugly glass stuff.

Why did Malvern Hills planners insist that a garage was acceptable in Lower Broadheath, while a nicely appointed bungalow (built inside the garage) was not (which hit the national press today).

Everything is subjective. We should be much more accepting of things that are different. The next thing will be that the Council will be saying that my grass in front of the house is too long ... or too short .... saying that I can plant pansies but not daffodils in the flowerbed.

That is the mans house so why should a neighbour want him to tidy it up. Maybe the owner of the scruffy house should complain that next door is too tidy, that it doesn't conform with his scruffyness and it is the tidy house that is out of cinque with his house, not the other way around.

My local pub is called the "Live and Let Live" and there are quite a few around the locality with that name. Maybe we should

Report this post »

Jabbadad says...
10:02pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Well it seems that houses that are left looking in a neglected / un-lived condition quickly invite Squatters. Is that what you would sooner support? Where I live just around the corner a group of young Squatters have occupied this once nice house for some years now, and doesn't the law say that if they occupy for an un-interrupted period of time that they can claim ownership under squatters rights? So where does the law start and stop Keith?

Report this post »

Keith B says...
10:42pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Yes - squatters rights laws need amending - the rightful owner of the property should not be deprived of their ownership. Once again it is effectively the State confiscating somebody's property.

It depends on whether you believe that we are servants of the state (basic Labour philosophy) or that the State should allow people to choose their own routes in everything (US Republican but not really Tory, though in that direction.) On the other hand ones mans freedom to chose is another mans eyesaw.

I haven't got answers - just posing questions.

Report this post »

TmP says...
2:31pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Well I would not like to live next door to it would Keith B? I bet not, it isn't just a question of long grass and pansies it is tending ones home and improving the environment for people nearby. It may be that the owner has not the money to improve the property however the Empty Homes Officer can help in this way. Mr. Gunwhy really needs to communicate and not bury his head in the sand hoping it will go away cos it won't believe you me.

Report this post »

Lew Smoralz says...
9:47am Mon 15 Oct 12

Once upon a time, not so long ago, the concept of "An Englishman's home is his castle" ruled sway.

That concept has been eroded to the point where thousands of job roles have the right to force their way into your home.

Now there is an unspoken threat of confiscating someone's property if it is not maintained to a standard that the "jobworths" consider appropriate.

IMHO this is a slippery slope that we should not be going down. Where will it end? Prison for not replacing a tap washer?

Don't say that I am exaggerating as my grandparents would have been horrified to hear this news story.

Report this post »

Jabbadad says...
10:03am Mon 15 Oct 12

I also feel that perhaps your grandparents were in an age when people were respectful to their parents and neighbours. And rarely if ever did you see a property left to deteriorate and become an eyesore to offend their neighbours. In fact if the reason was that the residents were not able to attend to the Garden or property then the neighbours mucked in and did what it took to help the situation.
But there I go again dreaming about my childhood days when neighbours were friends as well. Yes the good days.

Report this post »

Keith B says...
10:18am Mon 15 Oct 12

Jabbadad - are you talking about 1950's / 60's. Life wasn't so rosey then ... well maybe in the middle class estates but not so in the Council Estates in Rochdale, Bradford, Birmingham and now trendy Islington. (and a million other places), But as stated by TmP, we didn't have jobsworths in our faces the whole time either telling us how to live our lives.

Or did we. In a pre-war society the jobsworths were the upper / ruling classes who controlled every aspect of their workers lives. They employed jobsworths who enforced the owners wishes - right down to dismissing workers who didn't keep the houses they rented to their own workers up to standard.

Not much changes - there will always be people who want to tell others how to live.

Report this post »

suzyspaghetti says...
9:18am Tue 16 Oct 12

Does the owner of the house live in the property? I DO see a recycle bin on the drive and the grass looks cut so I'm guessing maybe that he does.
Has anyone thought that the owner maybe short of money to be able to fix the house up (repairs are very costly) and if this is the case I fail to see how giving him fine after fine could help his situation?

As for the moaning pair next door to him, get on with wasting money on your own house and get a hobby or something.

Report this post »

Hamilton60 says...
10:59am Tue 16 Oct 12

Noone is entitled to a 'view' according to the planning laws apparently. I know this from previous experience when someone I know was living in a bungalow. A house was built on the land next door right up to the boundary fence, meaning it was three feet from the main window in his living room. So, that stopped him complaining about the long grass and rubbish on the neighbour's land.

Report this post »

More Tea Vicar says...
2:28pm Tue 16 Oct 12

I really wouldn't want a situation giving local government officers any great power over the rest of us. They do more harm than good as it is, by and large.

That said, there is a problem when some neighbours allow their houses to degrade. One minute it's general disrepair, next thing you know, there are litter bins and mouldy old cars in the front garden.

And that really is a problem for neighbours. An eyesore from the start, which ends up dragging the whole neighbourhood down.

I believe many areas of the US, and Europe, have regulations about that, and it sounds fair enough to me.

That said - around my area and many more, the council itself should be prosecuted. Planting shrubbery right next to paths and failing to keep it cut back, for example.

And Mr Gunwhy's misdeeds look a bit irrelevant compared to the council's plans to wreck large swathes of Worcestershire with tens of thousands of homes, just to keep their friends in the building industry happy.

Report this post »

Olga says...
8:45pm Wed 17 Oct 12

Keith B wrote:
Hang on.

This is somebody's private property - we are not yet in a socialist state where the state owns everything and allocates it to Party supporters.

The nanny state is taking over and is pushing us all into some kind of conformity.

Who is to say that a house with boarding on the window is less pretty than one with that ugly glass stuff.

Why did Malvern Hills planners insist that a garage was acceptable in Lower Broadheath, while a nicely appointed bungalow (built inside the garage) was not (which hit the national press today).

Everything is subjective. We should be much more accepting of things that are different. The next thing will be that the Council will be saying that my grass in front of the house is too long ... or too short .... saying that I can plant pansies but not daffodils in the flowerbed.

That is the mans house so why should a neighbour want him to tidy it up. Maybe the owner of the scruffy house should complain that next door is too tidy, that it doesn't conform with his scruffyness and it is the tidy house that is out of cinque with his house, not the other way around.

My local pub is called the "Live and Let Live" and there are quite a few around the locality with that name. Maybe we should
I understand where you're coming from but, we didn't buy a property on the Bromwich Road which appeared cheap enough, simply because the neighbours place was such a mess (actually quite a lot worse than the one in the article!) this was costing the tidy place thousands in lost value.
While I despise authority intervention there has to be some form of control where one persons freedom has such a negative effect on others.
That said the place written about here doesn't look as bad as the amount of fuss!!

Report this post »

Trenny says...
1:51pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Fine someone who obviously can't afford to do their property up quickly! and hit them with a big fine! - That's really going to help them out.

We don't know this persons situation or health so how dare we judge.

I have to say it looks OK from the photo and I have seen much worse. The grass is cut and tidy and it has been made safe.

How about we stop attacking such people and just offer a bit of help to our neighbors now and then.

Sometimes I just hate what we are becoming of a nation..

Report this post »

Trenny says...
1:59pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Just look at all the council owned properties that are left empty and going to ruin. Whole streets of them.

http://www.facebook.
com/propertyscandal

Why are Councils singling out this guy when they need to get their own house in order.

It's all a bit hypocritical don't you think?.

Report this post »

Jabbadad says...
3:58pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Known Fact that boarded up empty properties which are also badly maintained are the ideal conditions for Rats.

Report this post »

Guy66 says...
10:27pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Keith B wrote:
Jabbadad - are you talking about 1950's / 60's. Life wasn't so rosey then ... well maybe in the middle class estates but not so in the Council Estates in Rochdale, Bradford, Birmingham and now trendy Islington. (and a million other places), But as stated by TmP, we didn't have jobsworths in our faces the whole time either telling us how to live our lives.

Or did we. In a pre-war society the jobsworths were the upper / ruling classes who controlled every aspect of their workers lives. They employed jobsworths who enforced the owners wishes - right down to dismissing workers who didn't keep the houses they rented to their own workers up to standard.

Not much changes - there will always be people who want to tell others how to live.
You are aware that Islington has the highest number of people in council accomodation in london. It's not all 'rich middle classes'

Report this post »

Keith B says...
10:41pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Yes of course you are right - there are two very different Islingtons - as there are Rochdales, Bradfords & Birminghams.

But just because they are in Council accomodation doesn't make them poor or jobless. Indeed well known stars of stage and screen, top sportsmen, doctors and even MP's and a few Lords have Council homes.

Report this post »

CYNIC_AL says...
1:20am Sat 20 Oct 12

If it's a privately owned house then what right does the city council have to fine the owner or take him to court? What laws has he broken? I didn't realise having boarded-up windows and missing rendering was a criminal offence in the UK...

Report this post »

Trenny says...
10:03pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Jabbadad wrote:
Known Fact that boarded up empty properties which are also badly maintained are the ideal conditions for Rats.
Utter rubbish. Rats don't know if a property is boarded up or badly maintained. They are more likely to be in a garage where bird food is stored or near to chickens or other outdoor pets.

And why make this statement anyway? Nobody said anything about rats being present at this property. It's not healthy putting ideas like this into peoples minds without substance. Just another dig at this chap for no reason.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree