Now I don’t wish to appear to be some sort of wowser and I know it may seem a bit churlish to complain about neighbours socialising at this time of year … even un-Australian, but is it really?

Of course, if you don’t have ‘a life’ any interference to your piece of heaven may seem intolerable, however the issue usually comes down to what is reasonable, and that in turn depends on the circumstances.

The stereotypical situation usually involves an elderly neighbour and a family of boisterous teenagers of the Corey Worthington variety, you know, all mobile phone and attitude, and no doubt the police have relevant statistics to track the number of domestic disturbances but I must say in my neck of the woods excessive partying is not a major problem.

Car doors slamming first thing in the morning or people with four dogs who yap at everything that comes within 50 metres of their boundary would seem to me to be a much more irritating and persistent noise problem when living in a built up suburban area.

One colleague of mine tells his neighbours he simply doesn’t care how many ‘events’ they put on, so long as he and his wife are invited over, which they happily oblige.

This approach works for me and would seem to me a very Australian thing to do, what’s more as a person who has lived overseas for much of my life and has over the years had the opportunity to observe the cultures of many other countries ... I love it.

Take your policy and jam it

I recently contacted my local council to enquire about the status of a complaint I had first lodged twelve months ago.

Some contractors had appeared unannounced to water jet the large storm water pipe which runs through an easement adjacent to our house but seemingly had not even looked at the problem sump in question.

I quickly learned that the events were not connected in any way and that the works department in question had in fact not acted on my letter in any tangible way.

I was informed that my advice that damage could occur, in fact was likely to occur, as a consequence of the state of the council’s sunken sump had been duly noted and placed on a list which was regularly monitored by works staff who prioritised the ‘wish list’ (my words) to assess the urgency in terms of possible contingent liabilities compared to all the others on the presumably very long list.

I was further informed that there was no possibility of any remedial work this financial year and in fact no concrete date could be offered now, and unstated, but seemingly for the foreseeable future.

I thanked the helpful council officer for his explanation and concluded the conversation by summarising my understanding of his policies and procedures:

1) The council were not in the position now or for the foreseeable future to fix their infrastructure, which might in storm conditions create major and costly problems

2) As the ratepayer likely to suffer these potential damages I was legally unable to fix the problem myself

3) If in fact I did take on the problem myself and somehow made the problem worse I would be held personally responsible not only for any damages to my own property but also any other person’s property affected.

The nice man from the works department conceded that my ‘version’ was not an unfair assessment of the situation as he had outlined it, but hastened to reassure me once again, “it was just council’s policy”.