£16,000 fine for Landlord because tenant played dance music for 36 hours straight!

£16,000 fine for Landlord because tenant played dance music for 36 hours straight!

9:54 AM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago 24

Text Size

47 year old Jason Duffield a Landlord from Birmingham has been convicted of 5 breaches of the Noise Abatement Notice and was ordered to pay a fine of £10,000 plus £6,000 in costs to the council, because his tenant tortured the neighbours with 36 hours of loud dance music.

The tenant then disappeared from the property in Tamworth with no forwarding address.

Jason has now sold the property, but was last year handed a restraining order by police for excessive noise coming from the house and North Warwickshire Borough also gave him an abatement notice.

Jason told reporters “I honestly can’t put into words how I feel about it. It’s made me sick with worry and I have no idea how I will pay the fine.

“I will fight it all the way but it’s just so much extra stress. To get blamed for something I have not done is completely crazy. Even in court, the solicitors and the people next door said they had not seen me at the house.
“I warned the tenant, who said he does play music but not very loudly. The next thing I knew the police had come in and seized goods from the property.”

Assistant chief executive and solicitor to the council, Steve Maxey, said “Jason Duffield repeatedly ignored the warnings from the police and from the council, which not only constituted a flagrant breach of the law, but also caused undue distress and upset to his neighbours in Dordon.”

This then leaves open the question of proportional punishment and responsibility of the Landlord to be debated.

Share This Article


Private Housing Provider

12:20 PM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago

Crazy! So if a council tenant carried out a murder, we can expect a member of the council held accountable and go into prison for that crime?

Seem like this country is going so unreasonable!

Mike W

12:44 PM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago


Firstly this is a typical example of people responding to 'facts' posted without checking the story.
Secondly I do not know all the facts and as yet I have not accessed the court records.
Thirdly the newspaper story is clearly totally different.
Forthly if there were a tenant in place the why was this evidence not brought to the court? Tenancy agreement etc ... There was clearly other evidence....
Fifthly Trumpisms depend on people with preconceived ideas having those ideas reinforced by FAKE NEWS. We don't check the facts.
Sixthly if it were a court story I don't believe the judiciary are that stupid.
Now if I have got the wrong end of this 'story' I apologise but having read the newspaper story there is obviously another side to the story. Of course it could be wrong .... As I said I haven't yet checked the court records .... but at this point I am not going to bother!


14:48 PM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago

is it some kind of belated April Fool joke !

sure it just can't be true, no! never! sure the councils can't be that dafta and the courts!

This must be a story from Timbuktu under ISIS regime, where music is forbidden completely!

Dylan Morris

15:35 PM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago

If you read the press article in the Birmingham Mail (see link posted earlier) it's quite clear that he was living in the property himself and is now trying to say he was not, and it was a tenant of his that caused all the problems. Sounds a right fruitcake.

Mike T

16:04 PM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Narbeth" at "25/05/2017 - 12:07":

I agree Ian, it is clear that we have not/are not being told the full story.


17:49 PM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dylan Morris" at "25/05/2017 - 15:35":

Unless the newspaper report is erroneous. Until we see the court records who knows?

Monty Bodkin

19:55 PM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "25/05/2017 - 17:49":

Unless they have changed the law without telling anyone, it is reasonable to make some logical conclusions.

Andrew Stacey

20:11 PM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago

Get Cotswold barristers involved !

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

23:22 PM, 25th May 2017, About 6 years ago

I wonder when we will be able to read the full write up of the case?

I cannot believe the Judiciary are that stupid and on that basis I'd like to think the truth was that the offender is trying to wriggle out of the fine by inventing a fictitious tenant and the Judge saw straight through that one.

If my presumption is incorrect the case will undoubtedly be overturned on the appeal, which Duffield has already said he will make. He'd better have strong evidence of the property being let at the time of the offence (complete with details of the tenant which he would of course need to comply with Right to Rent) and strong evidence that he was living elsewhere, such as bank statements and utility bills etc. for his other address, and preferably reliable witness statements too. If he presents all of that and the appeal court find against him then I agree that the industry should support him. Not by paying his fines though as that would condone the Courts actions. We would need to ensure this case is fought all the way through to the Supreme Court, because the day the judiciary is allowed to punish a man for the crimes of another is the day that Anarchy truly begins.

Dr Rosalind Beck

0:11 AM, 26th May 2017, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "25/05/2017 - 23:22":

Yes, Mark. That sounds like a plan.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now