13-05-2025
Couple claimed beeping car park intercom was bad for their mental health
A couple who sued for £180,000 over claims they were driven crazy by the 'beep' of a car park intercom inches from their window have had their compensation bid thrown out.
Zhengfang Huang and Jingjing Chen, his girlfriend, lost their claim for damages for 'psychiatric injury', with Judge Melissa Clarke saying they should have 'expected' noise when they rented a flat in the middle of Brighton.
The couple claimed their lives were made a misery owing to noise coming from the council-run Little East Street car park next door to their home in the Lanes district of the city.
The only window in their rented flat faces on to a walkway into the busy parking area, with an alarm and intercom only a few inches below causing them constant noise nuisance, they told the High Court.
In summing up the case, Judge Clarke said: 'They complain of the door to the pedestrian entrance banging. Customers and third parties gather by the entrance to the car park. Their conversations can be heard through the window of the flat.
'They say they only have one window. They can't open it without noxious noise and smells coming in.
'They say their sleep has been disturbed, not only by the alarms which seem to have ceased, but also by the intercom and people coming in and out, shouting late at night.
'They say this has had an effect on their mental health, in particular on Mr Huang.'
The couple had already complained to Brighton and Hove council, which fixed a faulty alarm and deactivated the intercom, although the couple claim it has since been reactivated.
Judge Clarke rejected their request for a temporary injunction closing one of two entrances to the car park as she said it would be 'too inconvenient' for the public but said that case could continue at Brighton County Court.
She struck out their compensation claim for the alleged impact on their mental health, owing to a lack of evidence.
'Medical documentation has been attached, but no medical report served with the particulars of claim,' she said.
'Their case has been given a value of £180,000 but it clearly is not worth £180,000. There's no possibility of it being worth that.'
