Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to act on noise nuisance and breached data protection regulations. The Council failed to investigate Mrs B’s noise complaints in accordance with its procedure and breached data protection regulations. That caused Mrs B distress. An apology, discussion with Mrs B about installing noise recording equipment and arranging for officers to visit to witness the noise and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs B, complained the Council:
• failed to act on noise nuisance from a barking dog and a church group; and
• breached data protection regulations by sending a letter meant for her to her neighbour.
2. Mrs B says the Council’s actions mean she has continued to experience noise nuisance which has had an impact on her health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Mrs B and the organisation 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

The Environmental Protection Act 1990

8. Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the Act) creates a duty on councils to investigate and, where identified, take action to address ‘statutory nuisances.’ Under the Act, a statutory nuisance is one which:
• unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and/or
• injures health or is likely to injure health.
9. The Act refers to different things which can constitute a statutory nuisance. That includes noise if it comes from a ‘premises’ (which can include both domestic and commercial properties).

The Council’s Administration and Investigation of Noise Complaints Procedure

10. When a complaint is received it will be referred to the relevant team or investigating officer for investigation. The investigating officer will undertake a premises or complaint history check.
11. The complainant must be informed of what action can and cannot be taken on noise complaints. That may include a description in general terms of what constitutes a statutory noise nuisance and the tests that are applied. It is important to draw a distinction between a statutory nuisance and what is an annoyance.
12. The investigating officer must prioritise each complaint has high, medium, low or 'other case' according to the type, severity and extent of its impact in terms of the number of people affected.
13. The procedure sets out the type of cases that fall within the high, medium and low priority categories. High priority cases include those where the noise occurs regularly, where there has been more than one complaint about the same noise source in the last three months, where one household has made multiple complaints on different dates and where noise diary sheets have been completed and returned and indicate the likelihood of a statutory nuisance.
14. During an investigation the investigating officer will maintain regular contact with the complainant, updating them on action taken and the outcome.
15. For high priority complaints the Council should arrange a site visit. For medium and low priority complaints there is a presumption the investigating officer will undertake a site visit to witness the noise. Where that is not initially practicable the Council will send noise diary sheets. Medium and low priority complaints should have their priority reassessed during regular case reviews.
16. Where diary sheets are returned and may indicate a potential statutory nuisance the following action may be undertaken at the discretion of the investigating officer:
• site visit for further investigation;
• inclusion of the complaint on the out of hours register (if available);
• installation of noise monitoring and/or recording equipment at the complainant’s property as well as encouraging use of the mobile phone app.
17. Where repeat complaints continue to be received without resolution the investigating officer should assess whether the matter can be investigated further and/or brought to a conclusion. It is likely some form of investigation will need to be undertaken as part of the general duty on the council to take reasonably practical steps to investigate complaints. The officer should take into account the complaint history and actions taken. The decision about whether to take further action should be discussed with senior colleagues/management and the decision noted on the premises record.
18. During site visits officers should keep notes which include observations of any noise noted inside and immediately outside the source premises and detailed observations of all noise witnessed inside the complainant’s premises. The note should include a detailed description as to how, in the officer's opinion, the noise is affecting the complainant's use of their property.
19. It is not acceptable to assume a case has been resolved because the complainant has not made contact again after the initial complaint or following contact by the investigating officer. The officer should continue to manage the case, maintain contact with the complainant and keep them informed of case progression, including closure.
20. A noise complaint can be closed when one of the following happens:
• the complainant withdraws their complaint and/or no statutory nuisance has been identified;
• informal action has been taken which has resulted in the nuisance abating;
• formal action has been taken and the nuisance has abated;
• the case has been referred to an external agency or another department;
• the investigation establishes the complaint is not a statutory nuisance;
• the Council decides investigation of the complaint or effective action by the Council is not reasonably practicable.
21. The complainant must be informed, preferably in writing, of the outcome of the case and if appropriate offered advice on taking private action under the Act.

What happened

22. The Ombudsman will not normally consider a complaint about what happened more than 12 months ago. However, Mrs B put in a complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2023. The Ombudsman referred that complaint back to the Council as premature and therefore the earlier period is not outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
23. The Council contacted Mrs B in January 2024 to see whether the issue of noise from a neighbour’s dog barking was ongoing as officers had visited in November and not found any evidence of noise.
24. Mrs B told the Council the officer that visited had not entered her property and needed to do that to hear the impact of the noise. Mrs B said she had completed diary sheets and noted the dog had been quieter recently. The Council later closed that complaint but did not write to Mrs B to tell her.
25. Mrs B contacted the Council again in April 2024 about the dog barking. The Council opened a new case and sent Mrs B noise diary sheets to complete. The Council says it later closed the case due to insufficient evidence.
26. Mrs B put in a complaint to the Council. The Council responded to that on 16 May and apologised for not telling Mrs B it had closed the case. The Council agreed to reopen the complaint. The Council said it would ensure its officer contacted Mrs B when they were in the area rather than visiting unannounced. The Council asked Mrs B to complete noise app recordings.
27. The Council later sent a letter intended for Mrs B to her neighbour by mistake. The Council wrote to Mrs B to apologise for the data breach. The Council said it had reported the breach to the information governance manager and recorded it in the Council’s personal breach incident log.
28. Mrs B contacted the Council on 13 June to tell it she had experienced constant dog barking for a week. Mrs B contacted the Council again on 23 June to report excessive noise from dog barking and provided a recording and diary sheets. The Council reopened the case and gave Mrs B access to the noise app.
29. In July Mrs B contacted the Council to report noise from a church group using an industrial unit close to her property.
30. Mrs B provided the Council with further noise recordings of dog barking in September 2024. The Council reopened the case and provided Mrs B with diary sheets. Mrs B returned some diary sheets at the end of September.
31. On 10 February 2025 after reviewing the noise app recordings Mrs B had provided the Council contacted her to tell her it did not consider the dog noise was a statutory nuisance.
32. The Council opened a noise complaint about the church in April 2025 and provided Mrs B with diary sheets. The Council also opened a further case about dog barking. The Council contacted Mrs B to arrange to install noise recording equipment but Mrs B said her neighbour had agreed to keep the dog quiet and it was not necessary at that point.
33. Mrs B contacted the Council again in May 2025 to report dog barking had begun again. Mrs B asked for noise recording equipment. The Council offered Mrs B that equipment on 27 May but she raised concerns about whether the noise recorder would pick up conversations in her own property. I have seen no evidence of further contact between the Council and Mrs B since then.

Analysis

34. Mrs B says the Council failed to act when she reported noise nuisance from a barking dog and a church group. I have some concerns about how the Council dealt with both of those issues.
35. I am satisfied the Council has a detailed procedure for investigating noise complaints and I refer to parts of that document in paragraphs 10-21. Despite having a detailed procedure though I am not satisfied the Council followed its procedure when considering Mrs B’s concerns about noise from a barking dog. I have seen no evidence the Council wrote to Mrs B following receipt of the complaints to explain its powers and how it would investigate. Nor have I seen any evidence the Council considered what priority to give to the complaint.
36. I have seen no evidence the Council provided updates to Mrs B. I am also concerned that despite Mrs B providing the Council with diary sheets there is no evidence officers considered those sheets and whether further investigation was necessary. Nor has the Council provided me with any evidence officers kept notes of their consideration of the case. Also, I do not have any evidence of site visits to Mrs B’s property to witness the noise first hand and no evidence the Council told Mrs B when it decided to close the various cases, except for the case closed in February 2025. All that is fault and not in accordance with the Council’s procedure.
37. I am satisfied though for the dog barking the Council has considered Mrs B’s noise app recordings. I am satisfied the Council has explained to Mrs B it does not consider those noise app recordings show a statutory nuisance. I would, however, have expected the Council to try to witness the noise in person given this is what its procedure says will happen. Failure to do that is therefore fault.
38. I appreciate the Council has offered Mrs B noise recording equipment. The Council says Mrs B declined to have that. That is true for the offer of the equipment in April 2025. However, Mrs B made clear at that point she had declined the equipment because the noise had stopped. When it began again in May 2025 I am satisfied Mrs B asked the Council about the possibility of having noise recording equipment. I appreciate the Council said it could install noise recording equipment in Mrs B’s property. However, I have seen no evidence Mrs B declined to have that noise recording equipment in the property before I began my investigation. Instead, Mrs B asked the Council to clarify whether that equipment would also record conversations in her own property. I have seen no evidence the Council responded to that query. That is also fault.
39. I am also concerned about how the Council handled the complaint about noise from the church group. In its response to my enquiry the Council says it has not identified any advertisement for a place of worship on the industrial estate Mrs B says the church group is running from. However, there is no evidence the Council has visited at the times Mrs B says the church group is running to verify whether there is a noise nuisance. Nor have I seen any evidence the Council visited Mrs B’s property when the church group is running to witness the noise. That is not in accordance with the Council’s procedure and is fault.
40. The Council says it has received three noise app recordings from Mrs B showing the noise from the church group. The Council says those recordings do not show a statutory nuisance. I do not have a copy of documentation detailing officer’s assessment of the noise app recordings for the church group. Nor do I have any evidence the Council told Mrs B what view it had taken of those noise app recordings. I am therefore not satisfied the Council considered the noise from the church group properly. As I have made clear, the Council’s procedure says an officer will visit the property of the person that has complained to assess the noise and I have seen no evidence the Council did that in this case.
41. Because I am not satisfied the Council followed its procedure properly I am also not satisfied the Council properly considered the noise Mrs B is experiencing. I therefore recommend the Council apologise to Mrs B and liaise with her about whether she is happy to have noise recording equipment installed in her property. If she is, the Council should arrange for that to take place. The Council should also liaise with Mrs B to arrange to visit to witness both the dog barking noise and noise from the church group. I further recommended the Council arrange a training session for officers dealing with noise complaints to make sure they know what steps they need to follow and the records they need to keep, when investigating a noise complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
42. Mrs B complained the Council breached data protection regulations by sending a letter that was intended for her to her neighbour. The Council has apologised for that. I consider that a satisfactory remedy for this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Action

43. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs B for the distress she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• discuss with Mrs B whether she agrees for the Council to install noise recording equipment at her property and to discuss when officers will visit to witness the noise complained of.
44. Within three months of my decision the Council should hold a training session for officers dealing with noise complaints to ensure they are aware of the actions they need to take and the records they need to keep, when investigating a noise complaint.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman