News, Culture & Society

‘Neighbour from hell’, 55, is told he’ll be jailed if he plays loud music

‘Neighbour from hell’, 55, is told he’ll be jailed if he doesn’t stop blasting Underworld’s Born Slippy on repeat until 3am

  • Clyde Taylor played The Underworld’s Born Slippy repeatedly during the night
  • Council officials seized almost £1,000 worth of TV and stereo equipment 
  • Each time officials took his sound system, he replaced it with another stereo 
  • He has been warned that he faces prison if he breaches the abatement order

A nuisance neighbour who played the dance anthem Born Slippy on repeat has been warned he could face jail if he does not keep the music down.

The Underworld track used in the film Trainspotting was played by Clyde Taylor, 55, constantly, despite official demands to stop.

Council officers twice seized Mr Taylor’s stereo equipment, speakers, large screen television, amplifiers, and electric guitar in a bid to stop him.

Clyde Taylor, 55, from Eccles, Greater Manchester, played the Trainspotting track Born Slippy by The Underworld repeatedly during the early hours of the morning, to the annoyance of his neighbours

But each time he replaced the equipment and continued to play music and his electric guitar until the early hours at his home in Eccles.

They took firm action after he ignored a ‘polite’ request to keep the noise down.

Now he has been hit with an order which prevents him from ‘permitting music to be played at a level that can be heard outside the property’.

Manchester and Salford Magistrates court was told the noise continued during the working week as well as at weekends.

Now they have backed Salford council ‘s application for the first ever criminal behaviour order against statutory noise nuisance in Greater Manchester.

The order lasts five years and magistrates warned him that if he breaches the order he could be arrested and jailed.

Councillor David Lancaster, the council’s lead member for environment and community safety, said: ‘This is an unprecedented case which could have been avoided with a bit of neighbourly consideration. If he had complied with the first polite request to keep the noise down none of this would have been necessary.

‘We will always try to resolve noise complaints without resorting to the law but if people refuse to be reasonable and considerate then we will use our full powers.

‘It is the first time we have used a criminal behaviour order to tackle noise nuisance but, if need be, it will not be the last time we use these powers. We will be monitoring the property and I hope the gentleman fully appreciates if he breaches the order he could be jailed. We will have no hesitation in going back to court if this nuisance doesn’t stop.’

Magistrates were told that complaints began early in 2019 and council officers went to speak to Mr Taylor. At first he accepted he was being unreasonable but monitoring equipment showed the noise nuisance continued.

As a result he was issued with an abatement notice, which he ignored.

In June environmental protection officers from Salford Council got a warrant, entered the property and seized stereo equipment, numerous speakers and a large screen television, worth in total £959.

Mr Taylor then replaced all the equipment and the noise continued. Council officers again used a warrant to seize equipment including a bass guitar, amplifier speakers and another large screen television, worth in total £580.

He again replaced all the equipment and continued to play music at unacceptable levels into the early hours.

He was was summonsed to court in October and found guilty in his absence, of eight breaches of an abatement notice issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Magistrates fined him £330 per offence – a total of £2,640, ordered him to pay a £30 victim surcharge and to forfeit the seized equipment.

On Wednesday this week he unsuccessfully applied to the court to have the conviction set aside and the trial reheard. Magistrates reduced the level of the original fine to £50 per offence, imposed a £30 victim surcharge and made an order for £1,500 costs against him.



Comments are closed.