When the city or region officer proceed the noise complain, they shall go after the trouble maker, not the person who own the property.
Dear city council:
I rent out a house in Mississauga. The neighbor complained the tenant's noise. The city officer told me he didn't verify the noise, and knew the whole house is rented. And, the city officer sued me only to the court. They didn't even sue the noise maker.
How can the property owner help? How can this court case help when the city sued the property owner only, not adding the noise maker?
Did the noise control officer just take the advantage that it is easy to locate the property owner? Is it even ethic for law enforcement to do so?
I want raise three points here:
1. The law enforcement shall go after the noise maker, at least. Going after property owner only is not acceptable practice.
2. The new law shall give instructions. For example, if the law enforcement really think the property owner is responsible, is there any instruction? I asked the officer what to do? The officer said they don't instruct the method to control noise. We need to recognize, in my case, I am not able evict tenant while the city office told me the noise is not verified. And, also, landlord cannot even access the rental property without tenant's permission.
3. The law shall only go after the responsible person who is legally enabled to control the noise. In my case, the tenant is legally enabled to control the noise, but not sued. I, the landlord, is not legally enabled to control the noise, but got sued.
The legal system falls apart if the law enforcement is allowed to sue innocent persons.