Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council investigated the complainant’s reports of noisy neighbours. And its’ decision that there is no statutory noise nuisance. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the complainant’s noise reports and made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• failed to agree his reports of noise amounted to a statutory nuisance;
• refused to consider his personal noise recordings; and
• used officer opinion when making its decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Legislation and Guidance

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential statutory nuisances. A nuisance is defined as something which unreasonably interferes with someone else's enjoyment of their home or garden. Noise and fumes can be statutory nuisances.
7. For a council to consider something a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premise; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
8. Under the EPA, a council must take 'all reasonable steps' to investigate complaints about potential statutory nuisances.
9. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits.
10. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.

What happened

11. The Council confirmed it received Mr X’s complaint about noise from a barking dog in August 2023. It gave Mr X assessment forms to record a noise diary.
12. After receiving the completed diary sheets from Mr X, an Officer visited Mr X’s neighbour to discuss the concerns. The Council also advised Mr X the investigation was ongoing and asked him to continue to fill out the noise diary. It also offered to install noise monitoring equipment in Mr X’s home.
13. In September, Mr X advised that his neighbour had been away so there had been no noise for two weeks. Before this there had been little noise from the dog, but noise from a television and music.
14. The Council asked for the return of the noise diary and again offered to install noise monitoring equipment.
15. Mr X returned the noise diary in October. The Council says this showed 13 entries of noise from different sources including a barking dog, television, music, and people shouting. This occurred over a ten-week period. The Council again offered to install monitoring equipment. It refused to accept Mr X’s personal noise recordings as the equipment used was not calibrated.
16. The Council is satisfied that based on the information in the noise diary provided by Mr X, that no statutory noise nuisance exists.

My analysis

17. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision about whether a noise is a statutory nuisance unless there is evidence of fault in the way it was reached.
18. In this case, the officers addressed Mr X’s noise nuisance report within the required timescales.
19. The Council notified the neighbour about the report of noise. It also offered multiple times to install noise recording equipment, however Mr X has refused this
20. Following the investigation, the Council’s officers reached a professional judgement the noise was not a statutory nuisance. I can see no fault in the way this decision was reached. This means I cannot question the Council’s assessment the noise disturbance was not a statutory nuisance. Where a Council has not found a statutory nuisance, it cannot serve an abatement notice.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his report of noise leading to its decision there is no statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman