Latest news with #noisecomplaint
Daily Mail
27-05-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Melbourne café diner rants about 'rude' act taking place in this photo - before being slammed as 'entitled'
A university student's complaint about a group of women with children sitting near her study group at a Melbourne café has sparked a fierce debate - with hundreds weighing in on whether she's being entitled or simply asking for common courtesy. The student explained that she and a few of her classmates were working quietly at their usual café spot - laptops open, headphones in - when a group of women with 'loud kids' deliberately chose to sit at the table near them. There were at least 15 other seating options available, including larger and more 'suitable' tables elsewhere. 'Are we overreacting or is this extremely entitled?' the student asked on Reddit. 'To me, that's just inconsiderate. If I'm going to talk or make noise, I sit where others are doing the same - or at least not near people clearly trying to work or read,' the poster wrote. The student clarified they weren't expecting complete silence, but questioned the group's choice to sit in the only pocket of relative quiet when plenty of other seating was free. 'We had headphones on and they were louder than that. It wasn't that they were talking, it's that they chose to sit right next to the only group of people clearly trying to focus.' The post divided commenters immediately, with many telling the student, in no uncertain terms, that if she wanted peace and quiet, she should head to a university library instead of a public café. 'Embarrassing for you that you'd even ask this online,' one user wrote bluntly. 'You're in the wrong here. There are places called universities or libraries designed for studying - cafes are for socialising.' Others echoed the sentiment. 'It's a café, not a library. People can talk, take their kids, and enjoy themselves. Deal with it,' another wrote. 'I can't imagine being the sort of person who expects everyone else to be quiet in a quasi-public space,' said a third. Some pointed out that cafes are commercial businesses, not designated study zones, and that laptop users shouldn't expect to control the space. 'You chose to study at a place designed for social gathering - that's on you.' Still, not everyone sided with the loud group. Several commenters said that while cafes aren't silent zones, there's still a basic level of spatial awareness and courtesy that should be followed, especially when obvious quieter areas are available. 'If you know your group is loud and the café has a lot of empty seating, maybe don't sit right next to people clearly reading or working,' one user said. 'It's not about being silent. It's about being thoughtful.' Another added: 'Let's not pretend the loud and rude don't exist. I've been beside tables of people yelling at the top of their voices. The only solution is to move - or leave.' The drama raises a broader question: who gets to dictate the vibe of a public café? In Melbourne, where cafes are often filled with students tapping away at laptops, job-seekers taking Zoom calls, and freelancers treating cafes as makeshift offices, the boundaries between study space and social venue have become increasingly blurred. 'I've worked in cafes for years,' said one barista online. 'We get groups of students setting up for hours. They don't spend much, but they expect everyone else to stay quiet.' Others pointed out that café culture is changing - but not everyone agrees on whether that's a good thing. 'There are definitely unspoken zones,' one explained. 'The back corner? Usually quiet laptop crowd. Big tables by the playground? Loud chats and babies. It's not law, but most people follow it.' At the heart of the debate is a simple clash of expectations: one person's peaceful café corner is another person's perfectly fine lunch table. Was the group of women technically doing anything wrong? No. But could they have made a more considerate choice? Possibly. And for the student and her study group? Maybe it's time to invest in some noise-cancelling headphones - or head to the library after all.
Independent Singapore
19-05-2025
- General
- Independent Singapore
Resident complains about people who used mic & speakers 'to wake up whole neighbourhood' on Sunday morning
SINGAPORE: A woman took to social media to complain about an event where some people used a microphone and loudspeakers to seemingly address residents at a Housing & Development Board (HDB) block. This appears to have occurred on May 11, as a 'Happy Mothers' Day Banner' can be seen in a video recently shared by Facebook user Susu Lemak Manis on the COMPLAINT SINGAPORE group page. 'Today is Sunday, people's rest day. Music or activities are fine, but these people are using microphones and speakers to wake up the whole neighbourhood. Very selfish and inconsiderate behaviour. Why must they use microphone and speakers?' the author added. She also tagged the HDB and the Sembawang Town Council on the same video on her personal page. Commenters on the video on COMPLAINT SINGAPORE appear to believe the event was sponsored by a political party or one connected to one. Many told her that being subjected to this type of program is part and parcel of living in an HDB flat. 'When there's an event organised by whoever party, surely there's a paper approving it, so don't just keep complaining. Close all your windows and doors and put on earplugs,' one advised. '(If you) live in an HDB block, then I believe noise is a part of things you need to give and take,' wrote another. A Facebook user pointed out that it's a community space after all. Another suggested she call her Member of Parliament about it and ask why she posted the video when the event was over. Another, perhaps jokingly, called it the 'Kampung Spirit!' The Independent Singapore has reached out to the post author for further comments or updates. In space-scarce Singapore, where most people live in close proximity to one another, noise can be a constant source of difficulty for many. Also, given that not everyone is on the same shift or schedule, people can sometimes find that their precious rest time is challenged when others are up, about, and making noise at the same time. Just last week, a Holland Village resident spent S$800 to gather evidence against his loud neighbours, and many Singaporeans showed sympathy for him and his elderly mum. The man, 47, has lived with his mum, 85, for more than four decades at Jalan Merah Saga. However, over the past six years, they have reportedly been subjected to different kinds of noise from the unit on the floor above them, where two elderly sisters reside. These include the sound of chairs being dragged, objects smashed, and the heavy tread of footsteps. /TISG Read also: Holland Village resident spends $800 to gather evidence against loud neighbours, receives sympathy from Singaporeans
Telegraph
13-05-2025
- Telegraph
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.'
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Yahoo
Judge throws out case from couple who sued over carpark beep next to city centre flat
A couple who sued for £180,000 over claims they were driven crazy by the "beep" of a car park intercom inches from their apartment's only window in a historic city centre have had their compensation bid thrown out. Zhengfang Huang and girlfriend Jingjing Chen lost their claim for damages 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 due to noise emanating from the car park next door to their home in Brighton's historic Lanes district. The only window in their rented flat faces onto a pedestrian accessway into the busy parking area, with an alarm and intercom only a few inches below causing them constant noise nuisance, they told London's High Court. Suing for up to £180,000, they claimed their sleep, peace and mental health had been shattered by the regular "beep" of the intercom and ticket scanning machine "a few inches" from their window. But Judge Clarke threw out their £180,000 damages bid, telling them noise should be expected in a busy city centre like Brighton. "They should have expected this when they rented a city centre apartment on the ground floor," she said in her ruling last week. She also rejected the couple's claim for a temporary injunction closing the car park entrance, but said their injunction case could continue at Brighton County Court. Giving judgment, Judge Clarke said the couple had rented the flat in the Green Diamond Building, in Brighton's busy and historic city centre Lanes district, famous for its Georgian architecture and party atmosphere, fuelled by numerous stag and hen parties. Their only window opens onto a pedestrian walkway into the car park in Little East Street, which is operated by Brighton and Hove Council. "It has alarms attached to the walls of the flat which forms the property," she said. "The complaints start with the alarms, which were faulty and which the claimants accept have since been rectified. "The intercom, which customers use to scan tickets, is a few inches below their window. It beeps. It is used by customers to speak to the control centre of the car park. "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 Council, which fixed the faulty alarm and deactivated the intercom, although the couple claim it has since been reactivated. They then sued the council, seeking damages for "psychiatric injury" and a permanent injunction, closing the pedestrian entrance into the car park, pointing out there is another seconds away. The case reached court last week as they tried to have the access closed pending resolution of their claim as a whole at a later date. But refusing them a temporary injunction, Judge Clarke said closing the entrance would have a more detrimental impact on the public than leaving it open would have on the couple. "They should have known the flat had a single window which opened onto a small lane to a car park entrance where equipment was already installed," she said. "In my judgment, it is not just and convenient to grant the injunction at this stage. "That's because I consider that closing a car park entrance to the public, even though there's another one round the corner, is something which will be more inconvenient to the public and to the council than the inconvenience to the claimants of listening to a door banging and possibly an intercom being used." She transferred their claim for an injunction to Brighton County Court, but at the same time "struck out" their compensation claim for the alleged impact on their mental health due 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." The decision means the couple's bid to close the car park entrance will now go to the county court, but their damages claim for psychiatric injury is struck out.
The Independent
13-05-2025
- The Independent
Judge throws out case from couple who sued over carpark beep next to city centre flat
A couple who sued for £180,000 over claims they were driven crazy by the "beep" of a car park intercom inches from their apartment's only window in a historic city centre have had their compensation bid thrown out. Zhengfang Huang and girlfriend Jingjing Chen lost their claim for damages 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 due to noise emanating from the car park next door to their home in Brighton's historic Lanes district. The only window in their rented flat faces onto a pedestrian accessway into the busy parking area, with an alarm and intercom only a few inches below causing them constant noise nuisance, they told London's High Court. Suing for up to £180,000, they claimed their sleep, peace and mental health had been shattered by the regular "beep" of the intercom and ticket scanning machine "a few inches" from their window. But Judge Clarke threw out their £180,000 damages bid, telling them noise should be expected in a busy city centre like Brighton. "They should have expected this when they rented a city centre apartment on the ground floor," she said in her ruling last week. She also rejected the couple's claim for a temporary injunction closing the car park entrance, but said their injunction case could continue at Brighton County Court. Giving judgment, Judge Clarke said the couple had rented the flat in the Green Diamond Building, in Brighton's busy and historic city centre Lanes district, famous for its Georgian architecture and party atmosphere, fuelled by numerous stag and hen parties. Their only window opens onto a pedestrian walkway into the car park in Little East Street, which is operated by Brighton and Hove Council. "It has alarms attached to the walls of the flat which forms the property," she said. "The complaints start with the alarms, which were faulty and which the claimants accept have since been rectified. "The intercom, which customers use to scan tickets, is a few inches below their window. It beeps. It is used by customers to speak to the control centre of the car park. "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 Council, which fixed the faulty alarm and deactivated the intercom, although the couple claim it has since been reactivated. They then sued the council, seeking damages for "psychiatric injury" and a permanent injunction, closing the pedestrian entrance into the car park, pointing out there is another seconds away. The case reached court last week as they tried to have the access closed pending resolution of their claim as a whole at a later date. But refusing them a temporary injunction, Judge Clarke said closing the entrance would have a more detrimental impact on the public than leaving it open would have on the couple. "They should have known the flat had a single window which opened onto a small lane to a car park entrance where equipment was already installed," she said. "In my judgment, it is not just and convenient to grant the injunction at this stage. "That's because I consider that closing a car park entrance to the public, even though there's another one round the corner, is something which will be more inconvenient to the public and to the council than the inconvenience to the claimants of listening to a door banging and possibly an intercom being used." She transferred their claim for an injunction to Brighton County Court, but at the same time "struck out" their compensation claim for the alleged impact on their mental health due 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."
