Legal Loss of value or just notional loss ?

[Keithw]

When is a loss of value in a property a legal loss that can be sued for, as opposed to a notional loss ?

eg when neighbours trees obscure a sea view that used to be seen, there is clearly a loss of amenity in the property, and a loss of value due to the sea view no longer being available, however is that a legal loss that the neighbour can be sued for - say 150k,
or
does the legal loss not actually occur until the property is sold at a value less than it would be if the view was available, at which point the neighbour may be sued for the theoretical difference ?

[Bobsyouruncle]

If the neighbour has done nothing wrong in terms of legal height etc., I would have thought you need to stop taking those drugs Keith :-). How can tree growth on a neighbours property be a sue-able offence?

[McDuck]

When is a loss of value in a property a legal loss that can be sued for, as opposed to a notional loss ?

eg when neighbours trees obscure a sea view that used to be seen, there is clearly a loss of amenity in the property, and a loss of value due to the sea view no longer being available, however is that a legal loss that the neighbour can be sued for - say 150k,
or
does the legal loss not actually occur until the property is sold at a value less than it would be if the view was available, at which point the neighbour may be sued for the theoretical difference ?

It would depend on your local laws.

Assuming there was some sort of law that considered say a view, or sunlight, or privacy, things that were to be protected or at least not lost.

Your might not want a financial compensation, you might want some sort of action.
Say removal of a tree, or wall, or replacement of a dividing hedge.

If there was no supporting legal contract or related council or state legislation, just ask the offender directly, offer a trade or payment to get your way.

If they live there, reveal your possible plans ,to say rent the place out to six youngsters who love to party almost as much as they love rap music and having no exhaust pipes on their cars. Ha.

Except if it's Drelly, then you offer the house as a Sunday school. Haha.

[artemis]

Some useful info here -

https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/trees-and-neighbours

And here -

http://www.jacksonrussell.co.nz/site/jacksonrussell/Articles/Are%20Your%20NeighboursTrees%20or%20Hedges%20Blocking%20Your%20View.pdf

[Keithw]

Thanks for the comments guys, particularly like the student or Sunday School idea.
Dean, I am actually on some right now, being in recovery from an operation, but they are not the cause of seemingly irrational behaviour .
The sueable offence is not the growth of the trees, but failing to cut back trees that are causing damage and blocking view.
As has been referenced by Artimis, the Property law act 2007 sections 332 to 338 provide for the courts to order trees to be cut, and my question is around at what point does a legal loss occur to the property that is having its view obscured.
Has it occurred as soon as the view is obscured.
has it occurred when the owner refuses to cut or refuses a court order
has it occurred if the property that has lost the view is sold for less than it could have otherwise been ?

[Keithw]

Just thinking about the rowdy neighbour idea, there is perhaps a major flaw.
Everyone is entitled to quiet enjoyment of their own property. This is implied in the Property law act and probably some other act, but I cant find a specific reference to it.
But that also means the neighbours are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their property.
So it seems under the very same law that says the neighbours cant obscure your view, you / your tenants / occupants can't unreasonably disturb the neighbours.
In a rowdy tenant situation, is the landlord actually responsible for the stopping the actions of the tenants through the tenancy act, or is the general entitlement to quiet enjoyment law the one that is used in order to get some resolution.

[McDuck]

Just thinking about the rowdy neighbour idea, there is perhaps a major flaw.
Everyone is entitled to quiet enjoyment of their own property. This is implied in the Property law act and probably some other act, but I cant find a specific reference to it.
But that also means the neighbours are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their property.
So it seems under the very same law that says the neighbours cant obscure your view, you / your tenants / occupants can't unreasonably disturb the neighbours.
In a rowdy tenant situation, is the landlord actually responsible for the stopping the actions of the tenants through the tenancy act, or is the general entitlement to quiet enjoyment law the one that is used in order to get some resolution.

The quiet enjoyment section is really to stop a landlord from bothering their own tenant.
Noise control, a council department, would be responsible for trying to keep the music down.
I had a quick search of that lengthy legal document.
Is it talking about their trees hanging over your side of a fence, or some view blocking trees clearly on their property?

[Keithw]

We are talking about many trees around the garden and in particular 2 big trees that have grown to about 15 metres high x 6 mtrs wide in about 6 years ! where previously there was nothing.
Any branches hanging over the fence have long since been chopped off by me.

[Perry]

Have a look at this item.

Some quirky nuances, but might still have some relevance.

Follow-up story.

[Keithw]

Thanks Perry, yes i was aware of that long ongoing saga & it just shows how ridiculous rules can be used to bypass the logically obvious, not to mention incompetent Councils only interested in protecting their patch and hiding their stuff-ups at the expense of anyone else.

[drelly]

Except if it's Drelly, then you offer the house as a Sunday school. Haha.

Ha! Very good... feel like I'm in the bible belt already!

[Wayne]

It would seem, from the PLA, that a 'legal loss' wouldn't occur as the courts would either order the trees trimmed or there isn't an issue in the first place.