One neighbour said the noise had taken over his life
19:17, 10 Dec 2025Updated 19:17, 10 Dec 2025
Stephen and Layla McGuigan leave court in Liverpool today (December 10)(Image: Liverpool Echo)
A married couple have been found guilty after the noise from their barking dogs “took over” their neighbours’ lives. Stephen and Layla McGuigan have been told to pay more than £7,000 in total following complaints over their 14 dogs.
The couple, of St David Road, Eastham, Wirral, both appeared in Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, December 10 and were each found guilty by District Judge Paul Healey of four charges related to the contravention or failure to comply with a noise abatement notice. These had been denied by the couple who claimed they had taken steps to address concerns and accused those raising issues of unconscious bias and lies.
Liverpool Magistrates’ Court previously heard the case began when Wirral Council served the couple with a noise abatement notice in 2023 after the local authority received a number of complaints from those living nearby. The couple were found to be in breach of the notice in 2024 on April 16, April 24, as well as between April 21 and 23, and April 25 and 29.
The case was brought forward by the local authority who relied on evidence from Wirral Council technical officer Paul Bratley, recordings from a device placed in one home, as well as two neighbours Barry Heayns and Annette Owen. The court heard the McGuigans had no previous convictions.
In coming to his decision, Judge Healey told the court it was inevitable cases such as this had a significant background and when people are living so close to each other, neighbours would be affected by noise from those next door. However he said the council had determined the noise was excessive, even if this was disputed by the McGuigans, and he did not believe effective steps had been taken to address the issues.
He said: “In my view, the situation very much remains the same. There were a very large number of dogs at the property when the notice was issued and there were a large number of dogs at the property at the dates of the alleged issues.”
The judge said the McGuigans’ claims witnesses were wrong about where the noise was coming from was not credible and accepted the testimony of Mr Bratley, Mr Heayns, and Mrs Owen. He described the number of dogs at the property as “exceptional”.
Sentencing the couple, the court fined them separately £300 for each offence, a £480 victim surcharge, and £2,000 in costs to the council. This brings the total to be paid by the couple to £7,360.
He said the couple’s response “could be described as a deliberate and flagrant disregard” of the council’s notice, adding the couple “became defensive and dismissive” when questioned “rather than reflect on the impact the dogs were having on neighbours”.
Judge Healey told the court: “It has had a real impact on their quality of life. I think what is considerable is they really can’t escape from it. They have the house. It is where they should feel safe and secure.”
The court heard statements from Mr Heayns as well as his wife Lorraine alongside Mrs Owen and her husband Kevin. Mr Heayns said he was unable to relax in the property, being woken up as early as 5.30am, adding: “I feel it has taken over my life and it is extremely upsetting.”
Mrs Heayns said the couple’s grandchildren also feared visiting due to the noise created by the dogs, adding she had to reassure them “that the dogs can’t get to them”.
Mr Owen said they had taken steps to look at selling their home, adding: “It upset me that we have to even think in this way and my wife is so upset by the situation.” Mrs Owen said the noise “is really distressing” and she had sent more than 100 emails to the council over the situation.
Barrister Kyra Badman on behalf of Wirral Council said the costs to the local authority were estimated to be £15,437 due to the time Mr Bratley spent investigating issues, adding: “It would not surprise the court that it is continuing today.”
Following the guilty verdict, defence lawyer Ben Stanley said the couple had taken some action to try and address the issues and urged the court to consider the couple’s financial position when considering costs.
He said the couple had struggled to move due to the ongoing issues but they had found another property, adding: “That is requiring renovation at the property. It will be sometime next year when they move to that address.”