Excessive noise from exhaust systems - report to / report how?

jc808

The problem with flash motors like the neighbours is they're very susceptible to paint stripper...

artbaron

jc808 wrote: »

The problem with flash motors like the neighbours is they're very susceptible to paint stripper...

And the culprit would justifiably be susceptible to a good beating and / or arrest, depending on the owners of said 'flash motors'.

fivetide

artbaron wrote: »

They sound like busy-bodies. Yesterday my neighbour, who is elderly, said my car "sounds lovely". It runs on ITBs and next door's garage roof rattles when it idles. Glad I don't have whiny neighbours.

Assuming it is the middle of the day, that's all good. If it was 2am they might have a different opinion.

Then again if these guys are revving their cars and they have those hideous farty aftermarket pipes I can imagine it can get annoying. The OP doesn't want to approach them but personally I'd show a bit of interest in their cars and then ask if they can keep the noise down a bit at certain times. The police option won't work, I can guarantee that.

That's an interesting guarantee given that:

SECTION 59
Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance:
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which —
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

(3) Those powers are —
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any
premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power
conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).

(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers
conferred on him by this section unless —
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if—
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section —
• “driving” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
• “motor vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
• “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house


I'd say taking the car ought to be pretty effective. It is why it is important for the OP to capture it and get the backing of the council if possible.

No excuse for selfish/anti social behaviour.

petrolhead69

jc808 wrote: »

The problem with flash motors like the neighbours is they're very susceptible to paint stripper...

If the op is too timid to ask them to keep the noise down do you really think they will do this? And if they did and got caught they would probably end up in hospital.
S59 works well, there used to be a problem at my old house of boy racers cranking up their subwoofers regularly at 2 in the morning in the train station car park across the road and it was waking everybody up, police made an example out of one of them and the rest got the message and !!!!ed off to be !!!!!!!s elsewhere and didn't come back.
Hopefully they haven't declared the mods to the insurance to give plod something else to get their teeth into

Lum

^^^ That, also criminal damage is a more serious offence than driving around with a massive fart cannon strapped to the back of your car.

That said, Section 59 does make me rather uncomfortable as it allows the police to harass a driver and then seize their car (£100 to get it back) over and over again without any burden of proof and no legal recourse on the part of the driver.

It may be fine when only used against boy racers, but really it could be used against anyone.

maninthestreet

Lum wrote: »

^^^ That, also criminal damage is a more serious offence than driving around with a massive fart cannon strapped to the back of your car.

That said, Section 59 does make me rather uncomfortable as it allows the police to harass a driver and then seize their car (£100 to get it back) over and over again without any burden of proof and no legal recourse on the part of the driver.

It may be fine when only used against boy racers, but really it could be used against anyone.

Indeed - it doesn't comply with the Human Rights Act - you are guilty as accused with out trial or any sort of hearing tp plead your case, your property is subject to seizure and you have no right of appeal.
One day the police are going to use it against the wrong person who has the will (and money!) to pursue a judicial review of this appalling piece of legislation.