Brighton party house fine quashed

4:40pm Wednesday 20th February 2013 in News By Kimberly Middleton, Acting chief reporter

The party house in Fliff Road, Brighton The party house in Fliff Road, Brighton

A couple prosecuted for running a party house in Brighton have had their conviction quashed after the council official involved died.

Helen Sywak, 47, and Pasquale Biscardi, 33, were the first people in the city to be convicted after letting properties to noisy groups.

They were fined £12,000 after a court was told about the tenants in their adjoining properties in Cliff Road, close to Brighton Marina.

But now the couple have been told not only will they not have to pay the fine, but their legal costs of £70,000 will also be paid out of the public purse after a judge threw the case out.

Their lawyer Martin Cray argued that the couple had never been made aware a noise abatement notice had been served on them because it was delivered to the rented home at the centre of the problems while the couple were living in Cyprus.

The property was rented out to a range of groups, including school groups, people running the Brighton Marathon and large families.

Before the council took legal action, the couple had worked with officials to resolve problems with tenants, including fitting soundproof doors Ms Sywak said: “We did get the odd hen party but we didn’t know when they were booking and it was never advertised as such.

Related links

“We never felt we were guilty and felt it was a case worth fighting. Our names were completely muddied.

“Apart from this we have always had good experiences with the council and officers have always been kind.

Noise notices

Brighton and Hove City Council last night insisted the prosecution failed because a member of staff died.

A council spokesman said: “The defendants have certainly not proven that the nuisance we prosecuted them for did not exist.

“We also have a clear audit trail demonstrating that the appropriate abatement notices were indeed served on the defendants.

“The most recent judgement is based on the fact that our investigating officer tragically died late last year and was therefore not available to answer questions in person at this new hearing about issues the judge wanted further clarification on.

“The costs are being paid out of national funds, not by the council.

“We’re disappointed with this outcome, but we have no regrets about pursuing this case.”

What do you think? Write to the letters editor or email email letters@theargus.co.uk.

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments(17)

RottingdeanRant says...
4:53pm Wed 20 Feb 13

So the council and the investigating officer never kept full record then?

Report this post »

qm says...
4:56pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Sounds like a stupid person trying to defend the indefensible on behalf of a Council unfit for purpose and trying to place the responsibility for the failure on an employee who has sadly passed away, is about as reprehensible as it can get! Beyond disgraceful!

Report this post »

george smith says...
5:04pm Wed 20 Feb 13

It doesn't make it Ok that the money ts coming from national funds, we are still tax payers. This seems to be a waste of tax payers money.

Report this post »

Maxwell's Ghost says...
5:25pm Wed 20 Feb 13

B&H council do a good job with nuisance neighbours in general, however, they need some help from central Govt to improve their powers.
Also the neighbours should get stuck in.
Here are some tips. If there are mortgages on the properties visit the Land Registry online which will tell them which banks are mortgaging the properties and contact them with details of the use of the properties because even though they may be buy-to-let properties, the mortgagees could well be in breach of the terms of the mortgage.
I would also check the deeds of the land on which the houses sit. There are often covenants on the land which are still enforceable which prevent the use of properties in particular ways. These covenants can be useful in preventing houses being used in a certain way. Also anyone can take a case to county court or seek mediation with the landlord.
I suggest the neighbours seek help from their MPs to look at these avenues if the owners don't get a grip on their 'business'.

Report this post »

Andy R says...
5:28pm Wed 20 Feb 13

qm wrote:
Sounds like a stupid person trying to defend the indefensible on behalf of a Council unfit for purpose and trying to place the responsibility for the failure on an employee who has sadly passed away, is about as reprehensible as it can get! Beyond disgraceful!
Sounds like a completely implausible interpretation to me. What is there in the article to suggest that anyone is trying to blame the official who died?

The deceased could no longer give witness evidence for obvious reasons and the defendants (understandably from their standpoint I guess) are making the most of the fact that the case has been discontinued on a complete technicality.

I realise how mundane and boring this is going to sound but maybe, just maybe, it's a totally unique combination of circumstances which no-one could have predicted or done anything about. Oh how you must be yawning at my complete lack of imagination!

Report this post »

monkeymoo says...
5:58pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Cliff Road is practically WHITEHAWK anyway... (no..not "east Brighton, or "west Roedean"!!)

So does anyone really care about it?

Lol...i sit back and wait for the hate mail!!

Report this post »

On_the_Level says...
6:29pm Wed 20 Feb 13

The £70k should have been paid directly to the affected neighbours as compensation - instead they are back to square one

Report this post »

bikerjimbo says...
8:32pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Andy R you are so right. If the judge cannot question this main witness then the case will fail. It's a bit annoying how much this has cost us but at least the costs have been published. I too feel sorry for the neighbours but should this continue then further action can be taken.

Report this post »

qm says...
9:52pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Andy R wrote:
qm wrote:
Sounds like a stupid person trying to defend the indefensible on behalf of a Council unfit for purpose and trying to place the responsibility for the failure on an employee who has sadly passed away, is about as reprehensible as it can get! Beyond disgraceful!
Sounds like a completely implausible interpretation to me. What is there in the article to suggest that anyone is trying to blame the official who died?

The deceased could no longer give witness evidence for obvious reasons and the defendants (understandably from their standpoint I guess) are making the most of the fact that the case has been discontinued on a complete technicality.

I realise how mundane and boring this is going to sound but maybe, just maybe, it's a totally unique combination of circumstances which no-one could have predicted or done anything about. Oh how you must be yawning at my complete lack of imagination!
With all due respect to the deceased, he/she was not a witness, rather a collector and processor of witness statements/evidence. If a policeman in a murder inquiry unfortunately passes, does the perpetrator go free? No, I'm not going to yawn at your complete lack of imagination because I am unaware of it, I shall leave that privilege to you who should know if it is appropriate and I do accept that there may be a unique set of circumstances. However, if due process adhered to, the case should always be in a state whereby it can be concluded by other officials. If cases were abandoned every time someone fell ill, changed employment or tragically in this case, much worse, the conclusion speaks for itself. £70,000 doesn't include the Council's legal costs, and whoever's budget gets hit, it is ultimately you and I and everyone else that pays via whatever the vehicle of collection.
I did use the word 'blame' and accept that I should have worded it differently. I didn't mean that they were blaming the individual, rather the circumstance and I still find that totally unacceptable.

Report this post »

Hove Actually says...
10:28pm Wed 20 Feb 13

monkeymoo wrote:
Cliff Road is practically WHITEHAWK anyway... (no..not "east Brighton, or "west Roedean"!!)

So does anyone really care about it?

Lol...i sit back and wait for the hate mail!!
From the direction of Whitehawk Docks no doubt.........

Report this post »

mimseycal says...
11:12pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Absentee landlords with no interest in the property apart from what they can get out of it.

I do think they were extremely lucky to have the costs paid for by the taxpayer (regardless of which pocket it is taken from). Seems as if there certainly is a lot more behind this then the unfortunate demise of a council official.

Report this post »

Valerie Paynter says...
12:56am Thu 21 Feb 13

Important to keep files well up to date.

Report this post »

mimseycal says...
1:17am Thu 21 Feb 13

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Important to keep files well up to date.
Even more so when you are backing their contents with taxpayers money ;-)

Report this post »

Kate234 says...
5:54am Thu 21 Feb 13

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
B&H council do a good job with nuisance neighbours in general, however, they need some help from central Govt to improve their powers.
Also the neighbours should get stuck in.
Here are some tips. If there are mortgages on the properties visit the Land Registry online which will tell them which banks are mortgaging the properties and contact them with details of the use of the properties because even though they may be buy-to-let properties, the mortgagees could well be in breach of the terms of the mortgage.
I would also check the deeds of the land on which the houses sit. There are often covenants on the land which are still enforceable which prevent the use of properties in particular ways. These covenants can be useful in preventing houses being used in a certain way. Also anyone can take a case to county court or seek mediation with the landlord.
I suggest the neighbours seek help from their MPs to look at these avenues if the owners don't get a grip on their 'business'.
Also if the property is a flat and rented out in this way which is becoming very common in Brighton check with your managing agent if the insurance policy on the building has been changed to include this kind of activity.

It is unlikely as most insurance policies do not cover this and there is likely to be a stiff increase in the insurance for a building which contains flats that operate as holiday let properties. The freeholders can then prevent it.

If you need to claim on your buildings insurance and your insurance company finds out you should have had a commercial insurance policy in place on a block of flats where this goes on (and you don't) your buildings insurance policy will be invalid if they find out.

Report this post »

Maxwell's Ghost says...
8:13am Thu 21 Feb 13

.......and a letter to the HMRC also gets landlords to smarten up their acts. No one wants them buzzing about the place and they love landlords.

Report this post »

Morpheus says...
9:21am Thu 21 Feb 13

RottingdeanRant wrote:
So the council and the investigating officer never kept full record then?
Exactly, it shows what a useless organisation it is. When work is important a company has to keep records.

Report this post »

scoobysnax says...
10:21am Thu 21 Feb 13

It is an absolute miracle this case actually went to court in the first place. Where were all the lovely noise diaries that the council loves to talk about? The green council had probably already used them as toilet paper, another waste of evidence.The only reaction our building gets from council over our noise complaints is to tell us that the noises are all in our heads and that we are paranoid!!! Well now the tax payer has to pick up the bill, and still no one listens to those stupid f?*£%ing noise diaries!!
This council couldn't even organize an orgy in a brothel in Brighton, do you really expect them to take noise pollution seriously. I just love the way the owners of the house say the council and officers" have always been kind" especially living so close to people who are paranoid about noise. Just shut your face and fill out a noise diary, council's running out of toilet paper!

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