Summary: We did not find fault in the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance. However, we found fault in the Council’s complaint handling due to delay and poor communication, which caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. We are satisfied the Council’s offered remedy is proportionate to the injustice caused and we do not recommend any further action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take appropriate action in response to ongoing anti-social behaviour affecting his temporary accommodation. Mr X says the Council has not properly investigated his concerns about an alleged noise nuisance despite him providing evidence over the past year. Mr X considers the Council has not followed its own guidance, downplayed the seriousness of the matter, and failed to address the impact of the noise on him and his mother, who both have health conditions. Mr X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint handling and the absence of a Stage 2 response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

What I have not investigated

Suitability of temporary accommodation

4. Mr X has referred to being moved to permanent accommodation as the outcome he would like, given the difficulties he says he has experienced from noise in his current temporary accommodation.
5. I understand this as a remedy he seeks to resolve the situation rather than a separate complaint that the Council has provided unsuitable accommodation. I have therefore not investigated the suitability of Mr X’s temporary accommodation or the Council’s decisions about rehousing. This is because there are separate rights of review and appeal in relation to the suitability of accommodation and homelessness decisions, and the Ombudsman would normally expect a person to use those routes where it is reasonable to do so.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

Statutory nuisances

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
9. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include:

• noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street;
• smoke from premises;
• smells and fumes from industry, trade or business premises;
• artificial light from premises;
• insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises; and
• accumulation of deposits on 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 property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

11. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make 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 evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
13. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects 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 a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
14. 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.

Council noise nuisance guidance

15. The Council advises residents to remain calm and objective when assessing noise, and to consider whether what they are experiencing is reasonable, as occasional noise (for example, an occasional party) is unlikely to justify formal action.
16. If a resident believes they are experiencing a significant nuisance, the Council encourages them to first approach the neighbour politely and non-confrontationally, and if that does not work, to put the complaint in writing and keep a dated copy.
17. Where a resident reports a possible statutory nuisance to the Council, an investigating officer will usually ask the resident to complete noise diary sheets recording dates and times of disturbance. The resident must also confirm they are willing to give evidence in court if needed. The Council will normally contact the neighbour to advise a complaint has been made and seek cooperation.
18. When the diary sheets are returned, the officer assesses the information. If the officer considers the noise may amount to a statutory nuisance, the Council may provide equipment for the resident to record the noise. If recordings confirm a statutory nuisance, the Council may serve a legal notice requiring the nuisance to stop. If the nuisance continues, the Council may take enforcement action, including seizing equipment and prosecuting for breach of notice.
19. If the officer decides the noise is not a statutory nuisance (or cannot witness it) and the resident remains dissatisfied, the Council says the resident may consider taking private action, including through the Magistrates’ Court.

Back to top

What happened

20. I have summarised the key events relevant to this complaint. This is not a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
21. Mr X and his mother lived in temporary accommodation at Property A. They complained about regular noise from the flat above (Property B), which they said was intrusive and affected their health and wellbeing. The Council recorded the reports and involved its Neighbourhood team and the Resilience and Enforcement Team (which considers whether noise amounts to a statutory nuisance).
22. In January 2024 the Council asked Mr X to complete noise diary sheets. Mr X also requested noise recording equipment, but the Council explained it would first need diary evidence to assess whether further investigation (including equipment) was justified. The Council also suggested mediation, which Mr X declined.
23. In February 2024 the Council received diary evidence and the Resilience and Enforcement Team assessed it. The Council decided the noise described was “general living noise” and did not amount to a statutory nuisance. It wrote to Mr X confirming its decision and signposted him to taking private action in the Magistrates’ Court if he disagreed. The Council closed this statutory nuisance investigation in March 2024.
24. Mr X continued to report noise and provided a recording in March 2024. A senior officer reviewed the recording and again assessed the noise as consistent with normal domestic activity, with poor sound insulation likely contributing to noise transfer, and concluded it did not meet the threshold for statutory nuisance. The Council also recorded internally that it could not justify installing monitoring equipment based on the evidence reviewed.
25. Mr X continued to report noise through 2024 and further diary evidence was provided (covering late March to early June 2024). The Council again referred the diary evidence for consideration and reaffirmed the view that the reports did not evidence a statutory nuisance. The Council continued to recommend mediation.
26. The Council also took some informal tenancy-management steps. Its records show officers sought to engage with the upstairs household and inspected Property B. It recorded that Property B was carpeted in the bedrooms and lounge but had hard flooring in the hallway and stairs, and it discussed adding soft furnishings and carpeting once damp and mould works were completed. The Council also explored whether repairs or improvement works could reduce sound transfer, but recorded that this was not considered feasible.
27. In January 2025 the Council closed its ASB case on the basis no further evidence of nuisance had been provided, while noting it would reopen the case if new evidence was received.
28. In February and March 2025 Mr X made further reports to the Council and provided a further period of diary evidence. In mid-March 2025 the Council wrote to Mr X confirming it had reviewed the diary and decided the noise described was typical domestic activity and did not amount to a statutory nuisance, and it again signposted him to private action if he disagreed.
29. In April 2025 the Council provided Mr X with a link to a noise reporting/app-based tool and reiterated its view that the noise reported to date did not meet the statutory nuisance threshold. Mr X made further reports later in 2025.
30. Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his reports and about delays in complaint handling. In October 2025 the Council issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for delay and accepted it could not evidence that an earlier stage 2 response had been issued. It upheld the complaint about delay and offered £100.

Enquiries to the Council

31. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to Mr X and the Council. Of note, the Council said:
• It did not take formal enforcement action against the upstairs neighbour because it did not consider the evidence provided demonstrated a statutory nuisance.
• The Council considered the noise reported to be general living noise, with the impact increased by poor sound insulation in an older building.
• The Resilience and Enforcement Team reviewed diary evidence on more than one occasion and each time concluded there was no statutory nuisance.
• Although it did not find a statutory nuisance, it says officers raised the issue with the upstairs household and visited. It recorded the flat was carpeted in bedrooms and lounge but had hard flooring in the hallway and stairs, and the household agreed to install carpet once damp and mould works were completed.
• It says it offered mediation and sought to manage the situation through informal steps, but Mr X and his mother did not agree to mediation.
• It accepted there were delays in complaint handling, including uncertainty about whether an earlier Stage 2 response had been issued, and it offered £100 for the delay.
32. Of note, Mr X said:
• The Council repeatedly told him the reported issues did not amount to ASB and advised him to keep incident logs.
• The Council gave him access to a noise reporting app, but he found it difficult to use because the noise was sporadic. He said he asked for longer-term monitoring equipment but this was refused.
• He had since moved away from Property A and no longer resided there.

Back to top

Analysis

Noise nuisance / statutory nuisance

33. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils must take reasonable steps to investigate reports of potential statutory nuisance. The legislation does not prescribe a single investigative method. However, we would expect a council to gather proportionate evidence, review that evidence within a reasonable period, and reach a decision that it can explain and evidence. The key question for the Ombudsman is not whether Mr X experienced the noise as distressing, but whether the Council followed a reasonable process and reached a decision it was entitled to reach.
34. In this case, the Council’s records show it treated Mr X’s reports as a potential statutory nuisance complaint. It asked him to complete noise diary sheets and explained that it needed diary evidence before deciding whether further steps, such as noise recording equipment, were justified. The Council then reviewed diary evidence on more than one occasion, and it also considered a recording Mr X provided. On each occasion it concluded the evidence described or captured domestic activity associated with living in an upstairs flat, rather than noise that met the legal threshold for statutory nuisance. It communicated this outcome to Mr X in writing and signposted him to private action through the Magistrates’ Court if he disagreed.
35. This approach is consistent with what we would ordinarily expect from a reasonable investigation and with the Council’s own published guidance, which explains it will normally start with diary evidence and only consider recording equipment where the initial evidence suggests the noise may amount to a statutory nuisance. The Council also took steps beyond the statutory nuisance assessment by seeking to manage the situation informally. Its records indicate it engaged with the upstairs household, inspected the property, and discussed potential mitigation (such as carpeting) alongside offers of mediation. Mr X did not wish to pursue mediation, but the Council was entitled to offer it as an informal option where it had not identified a statutory nuisance.
36. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s professional judgement and says the impact on him and his mother was significant. I recognise that. However, the statutory nuisance test is an objective one and Councils must consider whether the evidence demonstrates an unreasonable and substantial interference for an average person. It is not fault for a Council to reach a professional judgement that noise is general living noise, particularly where its decision is based on diary evidence and supported by review of further information (such as a recording), and where it has explained the decision and signposted alternative routes.
37. The Ombudsman cannot act as an appeal body against professional judgements properly reached. Where a council has investigated appropriately and reached a decision it was entitled to reach, it is not for us to substitute our own view simply because Mr X disagrees with the outcome.
38. I therefore do not find fault in the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance or in its decision that the evidence did not demonstrate a statutory nuisance.

Complaint handling

39. The Council accepted there were delays in its complaint handling. In particular, it could not evidence that an earlier stage 2 response had been issued, and it also accepted there was no evidence it responded to an email in June 2025 about reviewing a housing offer. These were service failures. They would have caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty, particularly given he was repeatedly seeking updates and resolution. The Council apologised, upheld the complaint about delay, and offered £100 as a financial remedy.
40. In considering whether further action is needed, I have taken account of the nature of the fault (delay and poor communication rather than a failure to investigate the noise reports), the impact (time and trouble and uncertainty), and the fact Mr X has now moved away from the property so there is limited ongoing injustice capable of being remedied through our process.
41. In the circumstances, I consider the Council’s offer is a proportionate remedy for the avoidable uncertainty and time and trouble caused by the complaint handling delay. I therefore find fault in complaint handling but do not recommend any further action.

Back to top

Decision

42. We did not find fault in the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance. However, we found fault in the Council’s complaint handling due to delay and poor communication, which caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. We are satisfied the Council’s offered remedy is proportionate to the injustice caused and we do not recommend any further action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman