Summary: Ms D complained about the Council’s investigation of noise from a neighbouring house. We partially upheld the complaint, finding the Council did not record telling Ms D when it closed its investigation nor answer emails she sent later. This caused her avoidable and unnecessary distress. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement we set out action it has agreed to remedy that injustice and to improve its service to prevent a repeat.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained about the Council’s investigation of noise disturbance caused to her by her neighbours. Ms D said the Council failed to prevent this and treated her poorly, not recognising the impact of the noise and providing poor customer service including not answering emails. Ms D said the Council should also have given more weight to her own noise recordings.
2. Ms D said because of the noise disturbance she experienced health problems which impacted on her employment. She considered the Council’s failings compounded the distress this caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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)
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. Before issuing this decision statement I considered the following:

• Ms D’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information she provided;
• Ms D’s earlier complaint to the Council and its replies to her;
• information provided by the Council in reply to my written enquiries;
• any relevant law, Government guidance or Council policy referred to below;
• any relevant guidance published by the Ombudsman referred to below.

7. I also gave Ms D and the Council chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of their responses before finalising the statement.

Back to top

What I found

Key law and guidance

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. A statutory nuisance can include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery.
9. 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 property; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

10. There is no fixed point at which noise becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence and decide if any noise is a statutory nuisance. These are usually Environmental Health Officers (EHOs).
11. Officers can gather evidence in ways including:

• asking the person(s) reporting nuisance to complete diary sheets;
• using noise monitoring equipment;
• site visits, including outside normal working hours.

12. Once a council has gathered evidence it should assess it. It should take account of the timing, duration, and intensity of any noise. Officers use their professional judgement to decide if a statutory nuisance exists.
13. The law says a council must consider how a potential nuisance will affect the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as an unusual sensitivity to noise.
14. If a council considers a statutory nuisance exists then it can serve a noise abatement notice on the person causing the noise, requiring it to cease. If the person fails to comply with the notice, then the council can potentially prosecute them for breaching it. Anyone receiving a noise abatement notice has a right to appeal to the Magistrates Court if they do not consider they have caused a statutory nuisance.
15. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is not a statutory nuisance. For example, they may choose to write to the person making the noise and ask if they can mitigate it.

Council policy

16. The Council’s policy for investigating reports of noise disturbance begins with a triage stage. If satisfied the noise could be a statutory nuisance then the Council will either offer advice or open an investigation. If it investigates it will first ask the person reporting noise to complete diary or log sheets. Second, it will then usually try and visit the site or install noise monitoring equipment. The Council will then review the case and either decide to pursue enforcement action or close the case.
17. The Council also produces a leaflet for those who report noise disturbance. This explains the legal definition of a statutory nuisance (see paragraph 9) and that its officers must decide if one exists, taking account of factors including:

• how long the noise lasts and how loud it is;
• how intrusive it is;
• how frequent the intrusion is;
• whether the noise is a one-off or continuing problem;
• what time of day or night it occurs;
• whether it is deliberate or not;
• the locale (i.e., whether it is a rural or urban area);
• whether the perpetrator has taken steps to avoid or reduce the nuisance.

The key facts

18. Ms D lives in a semi-detached property in the Council’s area. For several years she has experienced problems with her neighbours Mr and Mrs E. These have included a dispute over boundary issues and reports of racist and abusive language directed towards her. Before the events covered by this complaint, Ms D had reported these matters to the local police force. It had resolved to take no further action.
19. In 2022 Ms D contacted the Council specifically about noise from Mr and Mrs E’s home. She reported Mr and Mrs E kept her awake by banging doors in the property and other noises like stamping. She said Mr and Mrs E waited until she went to bed before these noises began. In addition, Ms D said she suffered occasional disturbance from their dog barking. And she now experienced further sleeplessness because Mr and Mrs E had installed a noisy wind chime in their garden.
20. The Council agreed these reports met the threshold for an investigation and advised Ms D of this. Over six weeks Ms D sent further emails which highlighted disturbance from the wind chime in particular but also alluded to the other matters referred to in paragraph 19 above.
21. At that point the Council began its investigation. It wrote to both Ms D and Mr and Mrs E. Its letter to Ms D acknowledged she had sent it a recording of the noise and asked for more details of this. It asked her to keep a log over the coming weeks of any further disturbance she experienced and said if it did not stop it would consider what steps to take next. It also enclosed with the letter a copy of its leaflet explaining its powers to investigate statutory nuisance (see paragraph 17 above).
22. Its letter to Mr and Mrs E alerted them to the report of disturbance made by Ms D, although it did not refer to her. It set out the Council’s powers to investigate and take enforcement action if it found a statutory nuisance. It provided advice on measures they might take to mitigate the impact of the wind chime, dog barking or doors slamming.
23. Ms D reported the disturbance continued and returned a log as requested. This highlighted many incidents of door slamming or similar noises, often late in the evening, typically around 11:00pm but sometimes earlier or later. Also, Ms D referred to one incident where she said she heard ‘racist comments over the fence’. Ms D referred to certain words used and that she only “half heard” certain “nasty comments”. Ms D also reported the following day that Mr and Mrs E had deliberately blocked her driveway with their car for a time.
24. The following month, after Ms D chased an update, the Council said it would install noise monitoring equipment. This was unavailable for the next three months. Meanwhile, Ms D continued to provide logs of the disturbance she experienced. By now the wind chime noise had lessened, and Ms D told me her neighbours took steps to quieten this. But she continued to hear noises like doors slamming during the day and sometimes into the late evening (and occasionally early morning).
25. Ms D also provided the Council with some clips of the noises, from her phone. The Council’s EHO recorded on their notes the noises sounded like everyday household noise.
26. Six months after Ms D contacted the Council it fitted noise monitoring equipment for a week. Its EHO visited Ms D’s home twice to drop off and collect the equipment. They noted that Ms D’s home had hard floors and had little soft surfaces. They advised Ms D this might amplify the effect of any noise through the walls. They also noted that Ms D appeared sensitive to noise, reporting she jumped when post arrived during the visit. The EHO said they told Ms D the Council could not take action to prevent what it considered everyday household noise.
27. The EHO kept a note of listening to recordings taken through the monitoring equipment. They said they heard some noises such as dog barking. But they considered this of short duration and infrequent.
28. The Council says that when it visited Ms D to collect its equipment, its EHO advised they would now close the case. But it put nothing in writing to this effect and the case remained open for another seven months.
29. During those months Ms D sent further emails, the first around a week after the EHO’s second visit. The Council has no record of receiving this even though Ms D addressed it correctly. The next email followed around two months later when Ms D attached the first of the emails. Both emails reported the disturbance continued and she provided more recordings taken on her phone.
30. The EHO kept a note that Ms D had recorded a noise of “banging sounds on hard floor” but implied this sounded similar to earlier noises. They took no further action and had no further communication with Ms D.
31. There was also no further communication between Ms D and the Council before the case closed.
32. In 2024, having heard nothing further, Ms D made a complaint to the Council. She explained the impact of Mr and Mrs E’s actions on her health and employment. Ms D said there had been further recent incidents over which she had contacted the police, and she continued to experience disturbance from ‘jumping’ and ‘house shaking’ noises felt overnight.
33. In its reply to the complaint, the Council referred to Ms D making a report of noise from wind chimes. It said that it had followed “all reasonable lines of enquiry” in investigating this. It said Ms D could make a fresh complaint of noise disturbance. It encouraged her to report to the police any incidents of harassment.
34. Ms D escalated her complaint. She said despite the noise with the wind chime having resolved, she had continued to experience noise from Mr and Mrs E through “deliberate banging, door slamming, stamping on the floor and dog barking”. She said the Council’s noise monitoring had failed because her neighbours had been aware of it. She also complained at the Council’s failure to answer the emails she sent referred to at paragraph 29.
35. In its final response, the Council said it had carried out a full investigation into Ms D’s reports and found no evidence of statutory nuisance. It again encouraged Ms D to make a fresh report if she experienced ongoing disturbance.

My findings

36. In reaching my findings, I looked at two issues. First, if there was any fault in the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action in response to the noise disturbance Ms D reported. Second, to consider the quality of customer service Ms D received when she reported that disturbance.

Findings on the decision not to take enforcement action

37. On the first point, I found no fault. The Council considered the first-hand reports Ms D compiled over an approximate six-month period and the noise recordings she made on her phone. It also fitted its own noise monitoring equipment and considered any recording that made. It came to the view the noise Ms D heard was not a statutory nuisance. It did this focused mainly on the type of noise heard. Its officer clearly gave weight to its sporadic nature and that it appeared consistent with everyday household noise.
38. I understood Ms D believed the noise deliberately caused by neighbours who had a personal hostility towards her. If this was shown, then I considered the noise would not be ‘everyday’ in nature (the Council’s leaflet recognises this). But I did not find the Council had evidence that could have caused it to conclude this. I took account of the long history of difficulties Ms D reported having with Mr and Mrs E. But I did not consider the Council could find this meant any noise Ms D heard arose from any deliberate hostility on Mr and Mrs E’s part.
39. I also did not consider the Council obliged to have given any more weight to Ms D’s own noise recordings. While these were a source of evidence, such recordings have limits to their value. Unlike noise recording equipment a phone recording cannot record volume or tone. So, while it gives an impression of what someone experiences, it is less useful as a source of evidence that may need to satisfy a Court. I found the Council listened to Ms D’s recordings which was good practice. But it did not find they added to the impression it gained from listening to the noise from the recordings it made. I listened to Ms D’s recordings and found no reason to question how it reached its judgement on that point.
40. I found nothing to suggest Mr and Mrs E learnt of the noise recording equipment the Council fitted. Its letter to them advised it could use noise recording, but it had no contact subsequently which referred to this again. The equipment also went in several months after the Council sent its letter. I could not discount they may still have learnt of it, possibly from seeing the Council officer enter Ms D’s house. But I could not fault the Council for how it went about fitting the equipment.
41. I noted the Council’s comment that Ms D appeared sensitive to noise and why it said this. Ms D did not consider this was so and questioned the accuracy or relevance of this statement. I could not say whether Ms D experienced such sensitivity or not. But I had no reason to doubt the officer genuinely held the view that Ms D had such sensitivity and noted they set out their reasons for that.
42. In which case, it was relevant for the Council to consider this, because as I explained above the law relies on how an average person hears noise. So, if it believes a person has a particular sensitivity to noise then it must take account of this. I did not see it as a value judgement, implying Ms D made unnecessary reports. But a relevant factor for it to balance when deciding on what action it should take.
43. Overall, I found the Council’s decision only took relevant facts into account, did not ignore any relevant facts and did not take account of anything irrelevant. So, it did not take the decision to close its investigation with fault.
44. Further, before it reached this point the Council showed some good practice. It tried at the outset to bring some informal resolution to the noise disturbance Ms D reported. It achieved some success in that, as Ms D’s neighbours took some action to abate the wind chime noise which was an initial cause of Ms D’s contact. I accept the wind chime was never Ms D’s sole reason to contact the Council and think it unfortunate the later complaint correspondence gave this impression.
45. However, I did have one concern which centred on the two reports I noted in paragraph 23. These fell outside the other reports made by Ms D, providing an account of anti-social behaviour going beyond noise alone. The Council appeared to have overlooked these. I was concerned that it did not pick up on the reports and advise Ms D of any wider service it offered to respond to anti-social behaviour. Or to alert that service directly to Ms D’s reports or encourage her to contact the police about these matters.
46. But that said I did not consider this enough to reach a finding of fault causing injustice. This is because I found the reports isolated, in what was clearly a far larger pattern of reports of noise Ms D found disturbing. I also considered the lack of detail around the report of racist language made it unlikely any agency could have pursued this further. Further, I am satisfied that Ms D already knew of her ability to contact the police to report such incidents.

Findings on the customer service Ms D received

47. I found Ms D experienced some delay in receiving confirmation the Council had begun an investigation into the noise she reported. And during the investigation she had to chase an update. But against this I found the Council’s letter to Ms D and its leaflet helpful. The leaflet in particular set out a definition of statutory nuisance, the Council’s powers, and the need for evidence if it was to take enforcement. Overall, I could not say the initial service was poor enough to find fault.
48. But the Council was at fault when it came to ending its investigation of Ms D’s case. It did not write to tell Ms D when it took this decision, seven months after its second visit to her home. I accept it may have intended to take the decision earlier. Its active investigation largely stopped after it collected the noise recording equipment, although there is evidence it listened to the further recording Ms D made subsequently.
49. I also accepted that when it collected the noise monitoring equipment the Council wanted to give the impression it could probably not pursue enforcement. That came across in the officer’s notes. But I do not find it left Ms D with the understanding it had ended its investigation. Ms D’s later emails to the Council made clear she did not know the case had closed.
50. It was a further fault the Council did not acknowledge or reply to those emails either.
51. The Council unfortunately then compounded these faults by not recognising them when writing to Ms D in response to her complaint. I found its responses unacceptably brief, giving Ms D no reasons for its decision to close its investigation. This is something she should have received in writing at the time it closed the case and so the Council should have put that right when it wrote in response to her complaint.
52. In considering the injustice caused to Ms D, I noted that while the Council could not prevent or act against the noise she heard, it was still a source of distress to her. The lack of communication from the Council caused its own distress besides this, through some avoidable uncertainty and frustration over several months. Ms D did not know if, when or why the Council closed her case.
53. Finally, I noted the Council invited Ms D to get back in touch with its environmental services if she continued to experience noise disturbance that had worsened since it closed her case. That was appropriate advice. But I would add to that, the Council also has a responsibility to help try and prevent anti-social behaviour in its area. This is something that encompass more than noise, to include instances of harassment or verbal abuse.
54. The Council does not work by itself and will defer to the police to investigate alleged crimes. But it must be willing to co-ordinate investigation with the police or any other agency involved, if needed. This includes following its ‘community trigger’ policy where someone experiences persistent anti-social behaviour and remains dissatisfied with the reply. As Ms D did not ask the Council to respond to reports of further noise, it was not appropriate for me to consider if it should have signposted her towards or invoked the community trigger as part of this investigation. But it is something I asked it to note if Ms D’s position changed.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. The Council has accepted the findings set out above. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms D, detailed in paragraph 52, it has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will:
1. provide an apology to her, following the guidance on apologies we set out in section 3.2 of our guidance on remedies (see Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman);
2. make a symbolic payment to Ms D of £250 in recognition of the distress caused to her (see section 3.6i of our guidance on remedies).
56. Also, to try and prevent a repeat of the fault identified in this case the Council has agreed within 20 working days of this decision to issue a reminder to all staff who investigate potential statutory nuisance of the importance of communication in closing investigations. They should always put a decision in writing with reasons for closing the case.
57. The Council will provide us with evidence that it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

58. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Ms D. The Council accepted these findings and has agreed action to remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman