Friends

A dispute with a neighbour

The noise from upstairs, the fence that went up without a word, the car across your driveway. You have to keep living next to this person, and every exchange so far has made it worse.

What they need from you, and why

Nobody in a neighbour dispute set out to have one. The Nonviolent Communication module opens with a building meeting that nearly became a riot: a retired plumber purple-faced about noise from upstairs, a shift nurse with a toddler who felt her chest tighten, a chairperson telling everyone to calm down, and each reply coming back sharper than the last. Nobody in that room was evil, and nobody came looking for a fight, yet almost everything anyone said seemed built to start one. Marshall Rosenberg called it life-alienating communication: judging, blaming and demanding, so habitual we don't notice. "You're so inconsiderate" gets "I'm inconsiderate? You're the one who..." and two people who share a fence line are at war over something small.

What your neighbour needs, before anything else, is to feel heard, because until they do they can't hear you. The module's camera test is the way in: describe only what a camera would have recorded. In its parking-war story, a mediator asked two feuding neighbours to do just that, and with the evaluations stripped away the facts were surprisingly small: a van across a driveway kerb four times, bins near a gate three Tuesdays running. Asked what they were feeling and needing, one needed practical access for his work vehicle and the other needed her property line respected. Both needed respect, both needed something practical, and within twenty minutes they had an arrangement and had swapped phone numbers for the first time in three years. Roger Fisher and William Ury's distinction in Getting to Yes (1981) is the same idea: positions ("move your van") set you against each other, while the interests underneath are often compatible.

Then make a request, not a demand. The module's test is how you respond to a no: if a no gets guilt or punishment, it was never a request. Good requests are specific, doable, for now, framed as what you want rather than what you don't, and open to a no. Its seven-step sequence for conflict deals with the relationship before the problem: settle yourself, guess at what they're feeling and needing, say it, let them correct you, say what's going on for you, look for options together, agree something concrete. The Conversation Repair module's fence story shows the other half: the neighbour who built the fence got it right on his third try, when he named what he'd done and what it had cost her and asked, "What would make this right for you?" Her answer: "That's all I wanted to hear three years ago."

Understand it properly

First

Before you knock, strip your complaint down to what a camera would have recorded: dates, times, what happened. Leave the verdict on their character at home.

You could say

Have you got a minute? I'd rather sort this out between us than let it build up.
An opener that says you want to settle it, not win it, sets a different tone from the first sentence.
Your car's been across the end of my driveway three mornings this week, and I've had to wait to get out.
A plain observation passes the camera test; "you've got no respect for anyone" doesn't, and it invites a defence.
I'm frustrated, because I need to get to work on time. I'm guessing parking's tight for you too.
A feeling, a need, and a guess at theirs: it keeps you both on the same side of the problem.
What would make this workable for you?
Asking about their need rather than their position is where the options nobody has thought of come from.
Could we try [the bins on your side of the gate / the music down after ten] for a couple of weeks and see how it goes?
A request that's specific, doable and for now is easy to say yes to, and a no leaves the conversation open.

If it goes badly

Three ways this can turn. Read the one that happens; the others can wait.

You've said something like

Have you got a minute? I'd rather sort this out between us than let it build up.

If they fire straight back at you
Sounds like you're fed up too. What's it been like from your side?
Empathy before explanation: people can't take in your side until they feel heard, so hear theirs first, even when the words are harsh.
If they say "there's nothing I can do about it"
Okay. What would need to change for it to work? I'm open to ideas.
Every no is a yes to something else. Find out what they're protecting (sleep, a work vehicle, a toddler) and look for options that meet both needs.
If they won't talk to you at all
No worries. I've put what I'm asking in a note so it's clear, and I'm happy to talk whenever suits.
Keep the door open, in writing and calmly. If it goes further, a record of dates and what you asked for is what you'll need.

Send them to yourself, or to someone helping you.

Try not to say

"You people have zero respect for anyone else."
A verdict on their character is what NVC calls moralistic judgement; it turns a complaint into a courtroom and gets you a counter-attack.
"Sorry you're unhappy, but it's within the rules."
The non-apology from the module's fence story; it kept a cold war going for three years.
Leaving an anonymous note
It escalates without giving them anyone to talk to, and they'll guess it was you anyway.
Reporting them before you've spoken to them
Sometimes necessary, but it tells them you've chosen combat, and you still have to live next door afterwards.
"Let's all just calm down."
Nobody calms down on instruction; the chairperson in the module's building meeting tried it and the room got louder.

Afterwards

Do whatever you agreed, visibly, in the first week; that's what tells them the conversation was real. If you agreed a trial, check back when it's up: "How's the parking been from your end?" A hello on the stairs or a wave over the fence the next day says the disagreement hasn't made you enemies. If they don't keep their side, go back once more with observations rather than verdicts before you involve anyone else, and if it does come to that, the dates and the record of what you asked for are what will matter. Most places have a mediation or dispute service for neighbours, and it's usually a better first step than a formal complaint.

Understand it properly

The words above come from these. A section is about ten minutes; the whole module is there when you have longer.

Where this comes from

Deeper Dialogues, Nonviolent Communication: the building meeting that nearly became a riot, life-alienating communication and the five habits, the camera test, feelings, needs and requests, the parking war on Banksia Street, empathy before education, every "no" is a "yes" to something else, the seven-step conflict sequence
Deeper Dialogues, Conversation Repair: the neighbours and the fence (the non-apology, the over-apology and the repair that worked)
Deeper Dialogues, Difficult Conversations: positions versus interests, Fisher and Ury, Getting to Yes (1981)

We gather and pass on what researchers and support organisations have found. This isn't a replacement for a doctor, counsellor or support service.

What they need from you, and why

You could say

If it goes badly

Share these words

Try not to say

Afterwards

Understand it properly