I have received an email from a man whose deaf son was issued with an order banning him from playing ‘loud amplified music’ from his property. The father says:
My son lives in a house which we bought for him in 2019, it is a nice neighbourhood mainly made up of older people. My son is 30 years old and is deaf by birth; he wears a cochlear implant, and also has severe anxiety and diagnosed ADHD, both of which he takes medication for.
He has received a warning letter and now a Community Protection Notice relating to ‘loud amplified music’, which he denies. Obviously he is upset about these as he does not believe he has done anything to deserve them. He has spoken to his nearest neighbours who have no issues relating to noise.
I am under the impression that one of his other neighbours does not like him, and is on some kind of vendetta for which my son is suffering.
There have been no previous request re: noise issues, and no one came to offer any evidence or problems prior to issuing the orders. There are also no details of how to appeal on the letter.
We wrote to the council concerned on the man’s behalf, pointing out procedural problems with the CPN (including lack of information about how to appeal, and a typo in the text of the order). We also said:
Your authority didn’t talk to the recipient before issuing the CPW or CPN, and has not told him about the supporting evidence against him. This runs contrary to requirements in the Statutory Guidance, which states:
‘Informal interventions prior to a written warning should be attempted. Examples of appropriate informal interventions may include a conversation, general information about the possible escalation through the Community Protection Notice process, and Acceptable Behaviour Contract, or independent mediation. The issuing officer should make clear to the potential recipient, preferably verbally and in person, the alleged ASB and supporting evidence. Potential recipients should also be able to contact the issuing officer to discuss their case.’
Because the council didn’t talk to the young man beforehand, it is possible that it is not aware that he is deaf. We also pointed out other holes in the case:
- 1. The CPN recipient is deaf and wears a cochlear implant. Most of the time he plays music directly into his implant. If he plays music outside he says that it is at a reasonable volume. At night, he removes his cochlear implant, and would be unable to hear if music were being played in the house at this time by another resident. It would be highly unreasonable to make him responsible for music that he is unable to hear.
- 2. The CPN recipient states that on two of the alleged dates they were definitely not playing music outside, because it was raining.
- 3. Neither of the CPN recipient’s two immediate neighbours have any issues with noise or the volume of music, including a lady in her 80s. He has a good relationship with his adjoining neighbours, whom he has known for a number of years.
So far the council has not responded to our letter, nor has it responded to the father, who has offered to meet the council and mediate on his son’s behalf. We will continue to pressure the council until the case is reviewed.