Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and light spillage from a neighbouring property. We find the Council at fault for delays in reaching a resolution and for causing confusion as to whether Mrs X was also the subject of allegations of statutory nuisance. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and light spillage from a neighbouring property. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly investigate, keep her informed, or take suitable enforcement action.
2. Mrs X says the light spillage and loud noises happen at unsociable hours which disturbs her sleep and causes stress. She also says it is affecting the peaceful enjoyment of her home with her family and she has been put to time and trouble pursuing her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint and considered information she provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate ‘statutory nuisances’.
9. Typical things which may be a statutory nuisance include:
• noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street; and
• artificial light from premises.
10. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
11. 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. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
12. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the EHO(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The EHO(s) will use their professional judgment to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
13. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.
14. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the Magistrate’s Court. If the court is persuaded they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to draw a complainant’s attention to their right to private action under section 82 of the EPA.

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. Mrs X’s home has a shared entrance with her neighbour, Mr Y.
17. In April 2023 and May 2023, Mrs X submitted several online reports to the Council about alleged light pollution and noise nuisance coming from Mr Y’s property. Mrs X explained Mr Y’s security light faced her daughter’s bedroom and would flash on periodically throughout the night, disturbing her sleep. Mrs X also said Mr Y would slam his gate at unsociable times which disturbed her family.
18. The Council wrote to Mrs X to acknowledge her complaints and provide her with an out-of-hours phone number to contact it when the alleged nuisance was occurring so it could witness this.
19. The Council also wrote to Mr Y to explain it had received complaints relating to his address about alleged statutory nuisance which it was obliged to investigate. The Council provided details of how it would investigate and the potential consequences if it found evidence Mr Y was responsible for a statutory nuisance.
20. The Council assigned an investigating officer who called Mrs X to discuss her complaints. They reiterated they would need to witness the alleged nuisance and told Mrs X to contact the out-of-hours telephone number so they could witness the light spill she had complained about. The investigating officer explained that slamming a gate was a short-term noise issue of a matter of seconds and, as such, would not constitute a statutory noise nuisance.
21. The investigating officer visited Mrs X’s property in May 2023 to observe the light and how it affected Mrs X’s home. They then wrote to Mr Y to explain there may be an issue with his security light and asked him to reposition it so it would not shine into Mrs X’s home.
22. Mrs X emailed the Council in June 2023 to explain the security light was still causing a problem and the investigating officer reattended Mrs X’s property that month. Following this visit, the investigating officer asked Mr Y to install a light shield within 28 days to prevent light spill to Mrs X’s home.
23. Mrs X contacted the Council to say Mr Y had not put up a light shield, as he had agreed to, and the investigating officer visited the site again in August 2023. As Mr Y was not home, the investigating officer sent him a letter asking him to carry out the agreed action.
24. Mrs X emailed the investigating officer again in September 2023 to explain Mr Y still had not adjusted his light or put up a light shield and they agreed to carry out another site visit that month. As Mr Y was not home again, the investigating officer issued a final warning letter instructing him to carry out the agreed action.
25. Mrs X emailed the investigating officer in October 2023 asking how long Mr Y had to fit a light shield and asking what action the Council would take if he failed to do so. The investigating officer responded to explain they would contact Mrs X in due course, once they had heard back from Mr Y.
26. The investigating officer contacted Mr Y to ask if he had taken measures to resolve the issue and, if not, when he would. Mr Y explained the security light was a matter of safety for him and he did not believe it was intrusive.
27. In November 2023, Mrs X complained to the Council. Mrs X explained she had informed the Council about light spill and noise nuisance from her neighbour more than six months ago, but the Council had failed to resolve this.
28. In December 2023, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It explained its investigating officer had visited the site to assess the alleged light pollution. It said they had identified both Mrs X and Mr Y had similar security lights and had asked them both to adjust these in an attempt to mediate the matter. It explained the next step it could take would be formal enforcement action but as the light was only intermittent, it was unlikely to meet the legal requirements to serve an abatement notice. It also said the noise from slamming a gate would be short and infrequent and would not be deemed a noise nuisance. The Council explained Mrs X would be free to take her own private action and provided information about how to do this.
29. Mrs X asked the Council to reconsider her complaint. She said she had not been informed Mr Y had complained about her security light or been asked to adjust this. Mrs X said the light pollution issue had not been resolved and was still affecting her. Mrs X said Mr Y’s home had multiple occupants, meaning the gate would slam multiple times each day.
30. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in January 2024. It said it checked her security light was not faulty and was installed in such a way as to not disturb her neighbours. It said it had made recommendations to Mr Y and would monitor to ensure these were carried out. The Council also provided information again to explain what it will and will not investigate in terms of alleged noise nuisance.
31. The investigating officer contacted Mr Y in January 2024. They agreed Mr Y would either re-site his security light or install a light-shield within 28 days to prevent the light from shining into Mrs X’s home.
32. Mrs X chased the investigating officer in April 2024. She said there had been no change to Mr Y’s light and it still flashed on and off throughout the night. Mrs X pointed out it had now been a year since she had reported this.
33. In April 2024, Mr Y emailed the investigating officer, providing a photograph to show he had installed a light shield to prevent light spill to Mrs X’s home.
34. In May 2024, the investigating officer emailed Mrs X. They reiterated the gate slamming would not be considered a statutory nuisance as it was not continuous or prolonged. They also provided information about what the Council would and would not investigate as a statutory nuisance. This explained the Council could not deal with noise such as doors being closed/slammed.
35. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained the matter of light pollution had now been resolved. It said the complaint about the gate being slammed would not be a statutory nuisance, but Mrs X was free to take private action if she wished to.

Analysis

36. The Ombudsman’s role is to review councils’ adherence to procedure in making decisions, it is not our role to decide if a statutory nuisance has occurred. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information, and given clear and cogent reasons for its decision, we generally cannot criticise it. We do not make decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a route of appeal against their decisions, and we cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with a council’s decision.
37. Based on the information I have seen, the Council promptly engaged with Mrs X following her reports of possible statutory nuisance at a neighbouring property. The Council discussed the situation with Mrs X, alerted Mr Y to its investigation, and gathered the evidence it needed to make a decision. I do not find fault with the steps the Council took to investigate Mrs X’s complaints.
38. The Council told Mrs X why it did not believe the noise from slamming a gate was a noise nuisance and advised her she could take private action if she wished to. I do not find the Council at fault here as it promptly gave Mrs X its view of her complaint and the next steps she could take. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but that is not a reason for me to find the Council at fault.
39. The Council acknowledged Mr Y’s security light was causing light to enter Mrs X’s home and entered negotiation with him to rectify this. Mr Y agreed to install a light shield to prevent further light spill to Mrs X’s home and the Council has said it believes this has resolved the issue. I do not find fault with the action the Council took to address Mrs X’s complaint as it appears to have assessed the situation and entered negotiation to resolve it in line with the EPA.
40. That said, it took the Council more than a year to get to the point where it considered the matter resolved. During that time, the Council set several deadlines for Mr Y to act, but did not follow up on these promptly, and sometimes not until Mrs X chased it. This is a considerable delay, which amounts to fault and caused uncertainty for Mrs X, which is injustice.
41. In its initial response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council suggested her own security light was causing light spill to Mr Y’s home and it had asked her to address this. Mrs X told the Council she did not believe this was correct and asked it to explain in more detail, but it did not give her an answer. I have seen no evidence a counter-complaint was made about Mrs X’s light, that she was notified of this, or that she was asked to adjust her own light. It is unclear why the Council has said this, and it failed to answer Mrs X when questioned. This is fault and caused further uncertainty for Mrs X which is injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. To address the injustice caused by the fault identified above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of this decision:
• Provide Mrs X with a written apology for the delays in reaching a resolution to her complaint about light spillage, and for the confusion around whether she was the subject of a light spillage complaint. The Council should also explain whether it received a complaint about Mrs X’s own light and what action, if any, it took to investigate this.
• Pay Mrs X £150 to recognise the injustice caused by the faults identified above.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I find the Council at fault for delays in resolving Mrs X’s complaint about light spillage and for causing confusion around whether Mrs X was investigated for an alleged statutory notice. I do not find the Council at fault for the action it took to investigate Mrs X’s complaints of alleged statutory nuisance or how it reached its conclusions. The Council has accepted the recommendations above and I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman