Second Update From BCC:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We would like to thank you for taking the time to get in touch with us to raise the issue that you have been experiencing, Noise nuisance. Please be advised that as this matter is a request for service, it falls outside of the remit of a complaint so will need to be reported directly to the Service who the request falls under. The quickest and most effective way to ensure that a matter is handled is to use our website. This allows you to make a wide range of requests about matters across the City and is often far quicker than the Complaints process due to the timeframes for handling a complaint. To offer assistance for this matter, I have provided the link below which you can follow to raise your request:
Report a noise nuisance | Birmingham City Council
Please be advised the address is not a BCC tenant.

Best Regards,
------------
Business Support Officer
City Operations Complaints
Birmingham City Council

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTE:
What drew immediate attention was the strange advice given at the end, stating, 'PLEASE BE ADVISED THE ADDRESS IS NOT A BCC TENANT.'. Which is absolutely correct! Therefore how could they state that they had mixed up the addresses when clearly they have pointed out that one of them is not a tenancy. They are completely aware that the complainant is a tenant of BCC. This is undeniable proof that the replying housing officer clearly knew our clients correct address, and had deliberately sent the housing officer to check the complainants home instead of the perpetrators home, thus proving once again his suspicions of systemic Ageism?


You cannot get away from the fact that the complaint is about noise, and the kind of noise being produced is from a male with a very bad temper, just like a child that has been refused some sweets. Yet the words 'IT FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE REMIT OF A COMPLAINT' are used in a contrary manner, because a complaint is what it is, and cannot be redefined to suit those of responsibility for rectifying these disturbances?

If you read it carefully it has gone from a complaint to a request, as if they are they suggesting that he might be asking for more noise :-)?
The descriptive 'SLAMMING AND BANGING' clearly describes a type of actionable disruption which could be described as fits of temper, but more along the lines of those performed by a child!?


It could be the case that the person slamming and banging items around could be tired and angry, but the speculative side of this evident attitude could easily evolve from someone using substances or simply affected by contact of whatever they may be producing? Whichever this is, the situation could also produce violence, and end up with very negative consequences!


On several occasions this noisy neighbour has approached the wall nearest to where our client sleeps and deliberately dropped something heavy to the floor. Which is a clear indication that the perpetrator has no care or understanding that a person in their late 70's could be seriously affected by such actions. That should be enough to take this out of the realm of a simple noise problem, and into either deliberate harassment, or an attempt of harm?


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Later They Sent This Shared Reply ...It Was a Replying Email sent To The BCC, From The Noise Services:

Thank you for getting in touch. I raised the issue of noise with the relevant team and they have explained that from looking at the complaints we have received from (The Complainant) in May 2025, his address was (First Address), rather than (Second Address).


The (The Complainant) made 2 complaints to EH in May 2025, the first was a recorded anonymous complaint about dogs barking but is understood to have come from (The Complainant). Officers attempted to contact (The Complainant) by email in relation to this matter but no response was received. The complaint appeared to relate to dogs barking some 4 miles away from where (The Complainant) lived!?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


HE MUCH PREFERS BARKING DOGS, TO NOISY MOTORS! (Mouse-Over.)



NOTE: SERIOUSLY? 'a recorded anonymous complaint, and a dog barking 4 miles away!?'!
We will get to the asinine dog barking 4 miles away in a moment, but first and foremost the one and only complaint at that previous address was made on the 29th of April, and simply ignored by BCC, and it was made in writing ... NO ANONYMOUS PHONE CALLS! The complaints were never made to the noise service whatsoever, as they had let him down at his previous address which went on for many years, and he no longer feels they are even worth wasting his time with!

Secondly lets establish what the word 'ANONYMOUS' truly means...

Adjective: ANONYMOUS:
(1) Having no known name or identity or known source!
(2) Not known or lacking marked individuality!

(3) Could it possibly include 'ghosts'?

Our client stated that he is aware of Ghastly noise services, but he'd never heard of the Ghostly noise service :-)?


IN OTHER WORDS THEY HAD SIMPLY ACCUSED OUR CLIENT OF BEING SOME 'COMPLETELY UNKNOWN' COMPLAINANT..!?

Around that time he recalls that some idiot (His Words), from their department had actually phoned him, but as soon as they mentioned a dog barking complaint, he stated that he could never repeat his reply to them, and he had simply disconnected the call! We do believe that this was a deliberate attempt to goad him into saying something that they could have possibly used against him.

PERHAPS THE NOISE SERVICE HAVE MISSED THEIR OWN CALLING?

For a so-called professional service to rewrite the dictionary just to accuse an innocent man that has suffered noise from ignorant none tax paying neighbours for over a decade endorses the main opinions of the general public, that the BCC are not fit for purpose and the noise services are just another complete waste of tax payers money!

SERIOUSLY, A DOG BARKING 4 MILES AWAY, WHAT'S NEXT A CAT SINGING ON THE MOON!?

His complaint had described their noise as, 'noisy machines running 24/7, and are they accompanied by constant bumping noises'. It goes on to describe the 'ignorance of care when doors and lids etc, are deliberately slammed as loud as possible', which in layman terms describes deliberate and angry reactions to our client if he makes any protest whatsoever...

This isn't the first time that he'd received a reply that could have been much improved had it been written by a five year old instead of these inequitable amateurs. What is clear that making such a ridiculous accusation was clearly designed to discredit our client, possibly based upon his age?




WOULD PREFER BARKING DOGS TO A CAT SINGING ON THE MOON? SUGGESTION: DOGS ARE INCREDIBLY LOVING, LOYAL, AND PROTECTIVE ANIMALS.
UNLIKE YOURSELVES, SO STOP PICKING ON THEM..! (Mouse-Over.)


As mentioned in the complaint from his last home, they had replied to him with the following words...
The noise service Team had also advised on a previous complaint that the reported noise nuisance which you are experiencing from 'LOUD MUSIC' was received on 28 May 2025 and will be investigated as per our process.

NOTE: ONCE AGAIN THAT PARTICULAR COMPLAINT WAS MADE ON THE 29TH OF APRIL 2025 and he had only made one complaint at that previous address, in writing! BUT NEVER ABOUT MUSIC, OR DOGS..!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMMENT:
So there you have it, 'INEPT', How can a so-called professional service mistake the words of 'machinery along with slamming and banging noises', for either 'LOUD MUSIC', or 'DOGS BARKING 4 MILES AWAY'!? Where they got the latter from suggests to me that substance testing should be compulsory for people working in protective services, especially when they get paid to safeguard the general public?


The council clearly reversed our clients complaint and forced it to be his home that they searched, and what was also noticed is the council officer when he first came out to his home did so without any previous contact whatsoever! This is a major clue as to the bias that they show to our client in every single complaint he has ever made. It has always been turned around on him, and he becomes the investigated person.


Whilst this ---- (fill in the blanks) 'Person'? Investigated our clients home, he requested to hear any air vent fans that may be fitted in his home, to which there are only two! The loudest of these was in his kitchen cupboard. Our client stated that he never used any of them as he is well aware that fans can be a source of annoyance for others, and they are situated closer to his nice neighbours, and not his noisy ones. He began by switching on the kitchen fan and the inspecting person immediately ignored it.
However, when he put the almost silent bathroom fan on, the person seemed to make a fuss about a noise he said he could hear and then suggested it could be the reason of all the noise!? Our client stated at this point that he really couldn't hear anything of any significance whatsoever! This whispering fan was eventually turned into the councils only weapon against our client, who now continues to suffer..!


NOISE SERVICES POLICY?


We believe this quiet fan was a red flag for our client and we were correct. He has since received a ridiculous text message requesting him to switch that fan off as his neighbour was complaining about it? Our client had suffered for weeks and here he was again being blamed, and the fan itself is not only silent but also fairly new and is made by Vent Axia a quality manufacturer! He replied to the person to request that his neighbours turn off their machines and stop all the ignorant banging and slamming, and he added also that the fan has never been used since it was tested.


The bathroom is actually closer to his quiet neighbour, because there is a large bedroom inbetween the bathroom and his noisy neighbours house. That bedroom has a standard air vent (No Fan), which would entail that the first person to hear the fan from the bathroom would be our client and not his noisy neighbour! It's believed that the person inspecting the fans had deliberately suggested this fan because they couldn't find anything closer to the noisy neighbour to blame. Proving once again that he'd been sent to set up our client in order to falsely accuse him by using any made up accusation..!


Our client stated that he would welcome a true official to come and inspect that fan, because then there would be clear proof that the BCC are clearly committing Ageism, and they should answer for our clients continual suffering which is now over a full decade! And by 'true official' he means no one from BCC, or NS, but maybe an MP or even the BBC that often investigate this kind of public suffering..!


FANS ARE RARELY ANY PROBLEM, JUST THE IDIOTS THAT NEVER TURN AROUND
TO SNIFF WHAT THEY'RE BLOWING? NEVER BEEN A FAN OF NOISY NEIGHBOURS!


On the 06th of February 2026, He received a final letter from this person stating that they had decided our client was to blame and telling him not to keep using the fan? The fact of the matter is 'it has never been used', and if this person had any sense whatsoever, he could just look through the glass above the front door to see if the fan was on, because he would see the fused spurs red indicator light shining back at him. It is situated at the top of the stairs and is the fans isolating switch that supplies its source of power.

This simply proves that the person sent to investigate was only sent to frame him and falsely turn the blame on him! It fits in with the fact that they had already reversed the complainants around in order to make him their target! We can actually concur that this fan is not in the least noisy, and we are arranging an expert to test it and then contest this ridiculous accusation!