Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s response to her reports of noise, anti-social behaviour and light nuisance from a nearby business. We have found the Council at fault in wrongly closing Miss X’s original report but consider the action it has already taken provided a suitable remedy to Miss X. The Council has also agreed further action to avoid a reoccurrence.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council failed to properly respond and take effective action in response to her reports of noise, anti-social behaviour and light nuisance from a nearby business from November 2023 to February 2025. In particular, Miss X considers the Council has acted in bad faith when dealing with the matter and was wrongly advising the business when monitoring was taking place.
2. Miss X says she and her partner suffered sleep deprivation because of the nuisance which has had a harmful impact on their mental health.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss 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

Background 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.

Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

15. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.
16. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.

Anti-social behaviour

17. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant (although we cannot investigate the council’s actions as a social landlord); and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

18. The 2014 Act introduced six powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are:

• the power to issue a community protection notice (CPN);
• the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO);
• the power to close premises for a set length of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order, which a council, or other agencies, can apply for);
• a criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction); and
• the power for the police to disperse people from a specified area.

Alcohol Licensing

19. The Licensing Act 2003 sets out in law which businesses may need a licence to sell alcohol and what type of licence a business may need.
20. The Council is the body responsible for issuing alcohol licenses and is referred to as the licensing authority. Where an application is properly made and no responsible authority or other person makes representations, the licensing authority must grant the application, subject only to conditions in the Act. 

Key events

21. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened. The amount of information provided by Miss X and the Council was considerable. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
22. The business is a large city centre pub which has been operating for over 20 years. The Council has confirmed the existing justice licence converted to a Licensing Act 2003 licence some twenty years ago with no required amendments made to the licence since that date. Miss X lives in a flat within a multi-story building that overlooks the pub and its garden.
23. Miss X reported issues of noise from music and shouting at the business to the Council towards the end of November 2023. The Council wrote to the business to explain it would investigate the matter and would also notify its licensing team to consider if any licence conditions were being breached. The Council also contacted Miss X. The Council explained it would notify the business without saying who had made the complaint to provide it with an opportunity to resolve the matter informally. The Council further explained that if the matter was not resolved it would try to gather evidence and attached a diary to be completed and returned after two or three weeks. The Council asked for the diary to be continued until the case was closed. The Council said it would aim to complete noise monitoring in person or through equipment and would keep Miss X updated but asked that she confirm how things were going.
24. Miss X emailed the Council in early December to say the noise had been worse the previous evening. The Council contacted the business which advised it would arrange a sound engineer to check the noise limiter settings on its sound system and undertake monitoring of the noise.
25. Miss X sought an update from the Council in mid-December and raised a new issue about light nuisance. The solicitors for the business also responded to the Council during December.
26. The Council received a completed noise diary from Miss X towards the end of December. The Council contacted the business in early January 2024 about the alleged noise nuisance. The Council also sought video footage from Miss X and confirmed it would arrange an evening visit when officers were next available.
27. The Council received the video footage from Miss X in early January and contacted the business to say it had received a report lighting was affecting residential properties. The business confirmed it would adjust the lighting.
28. Miss X provided a further noise diary and video footage to the Council towards the end of February. The Council arranged to make evening visits during March.
29. The Council visited the business during the evening of 1 March but did not identify any excessive noise breakout from the venue. The officers telephoned Miss X to offer a home visit that evening to try and obtain evidence of the noise and light issues she was reporting and left a voicemail. Miss X responded by text to say the noise was not at its loudest that evening and would rather they visit when it was at its loudest. Miss X asked how late the officers were working as she would call if the noise got worse. There was no reply to this enquiry. Miss X did not make further contact that evening.
30. The Council received an enquiry from Miss X’s MP during March. This did not provide Miss X’s details and the Council provided a reply setting out its general procedure only.
31. The Council had not received any further reports from Miss X by the end of March and closed the case.
32. The Council received an enquiry from Miss X’s local Councillor towards the end of April and again advised of the general requirement to keep and return a diary. Miss X advised her councillor she had already done so and was still waiting for a visit. The Councillor passed this information to the Council.
33. The Council responded to Miss X’s local Councillor at the end of April. This set out the above actions and explained the matter had been closed as it had not received any further contact from Miss X since 1 March. The Councillor forwarded this reply to Miss X in early May and advised her to continue with the diary and making reports. Miss X complained about not being told the case had been closed.
34. The Council responded to the complaint towards the end of May. The Council accepted it should not have closed the case before confirming with Miss X that the actions it had taken and those of the business had resolved the issue and apologised. The Council noted Miss X had the direct contact details for the case officer but did not contact them again after her last message on 1 March. The Council explained the need for evidence to demonstrate the issue was ongoing and its frequency and how this affected Miss X in her home. The evidence provided by Miss X had been reviewed and it had been decided the next step was to collect evidence from her home but as she had advised it was not loud enough on the evening the case officer was due to visit and they did not hear further from Miss X they had assumed the issues were resolved. The Council accepted this was not the case and explained the team would be doing late night visits over the coming weekends and asked if Miss X wanted her case reopened and her property added to list. The Council also offered Miss X noise monitoring and explained this evidence with her diary, video footage and any evidence from a home visit would be the best way to substantiate the issues. The Council apologised for the breakdown in communication.
35. Miss X confirmed she wanted her case reopened and her home added to the list of properties for a visit but wanted a different case officer. Miss X suggested the case officer had lied about not receiving any evidence from her.
36. The Council confirmed to Miss X towards the end of May that her case had been reopened and added to the home visit list with officers available that weekend. The Council explained it could not offer an alternative case officer but that they would be accompanied by a senior officer. It would be open to Miss X to copy any information to another officer and she could also raise any concerns directly with the relevant manager. The Council advised it could install noise monitoring equipment the same night if the date was convenient. Miss X advised she would refuse access to the case officer. Miss X said the officer had told the business her address which had led to additional nuisance.
37. The Council provided a response to Miss X’s further concerns at the end of May. The Council explained it did not have a funded out of hours service but officers provided this to help affected people and there were two officers who dealt with noise from licensed premises overseen by a manager. Miss X had access to all three of those officers but evening work required officers to work in pairs and there were two officers working that weekend. The Council had found no evidence of negligence when reviewing the case other than it being closed as set out above. The Council noted that cases involving light nuisance would involve providing general details of the direction of the report so a business could make changes but individual addresses were not disclosed. The Council explained it would not now visit that night but would make arrangements to install the noise monitoring equipment during daytime hours.
38. Miss X replied at the end of May to reiterate her concerns about the case officer and that they had told her they would be back in touch to arrange another visit time. Miss X was unhappy the business had been told the general direction in terms of the light nuisance light and wanted to know who would be installing the noise monitoring equipment.
39. The Council contacted Miss X in mid-June about the availability of the noise monitoring equipment and that it would be installed by another officer. The Council also responded to Miss X’s allegation about the case officer. The Council confirmed the officer had documented receipt of Miss X’s diary evidence in December 2023 and February 2024 and her video evidence in January and February 2024. There was no dispute that Miss X had provided the Council with evidence. This had all been reviewed with the decision that the next step was a home visit. The Council explained the MP letter in March 2024 did not provide details of the constituent involved and so it had sent a standard reply with signposting about how to complain. The Council had then received the enquiry from her Councillor in April which stated Miss X had had to step over the team to get a solution which suggested some of the issues were resolved as a result. The Council asked Miss X which issues had been resolved and noted a male voice on the video footage had stated the noise may be sorted but the lights were not. The Council asked if there were still issues with both noise and light from the business so it could focus the investigation and update the business.
40. Miss X confirmed in mid-June that both light and noise from music were still an issue as well as ASB from customers. Miss X accepted her partner stated the music was resolved with the lights being the biggest problem but this was only for a short period. Miss X remained unhappy the case officer had said they would arrange another visit time but did not contact her again and then closed the case.
41. The Council responded to Miss X to say the relevant manager would oversee the ongoing investigation and provided their contact details for any evidence. The Council apologised again that the case had been closed prematurely.
42. Miss X confirmed she would send diaries completed from before May. She had not completed any diaries during May but would start again. The Council acknowledged receipt of further diaries and footage from Miss X in June.
43. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment at Miss X’s property on 20 June for one week.
44. Miss X sought an update following the above noise monitoring and asked if she still needed to keep diaries. The Council confirmed the noise monitoring data had all been uploaded but had not yet been reviewed. The Council asked if the week recorded was representative in term of noise. The Council also confirmed Miss X should continue to record any incidents of noise at an unbearable level as a minimum. The Council also asked how the lights had been during the period. The Council confirmed it had contacted the licensing team about the reported ASB issues and would follow this up.
45. Miss X advised the Council the week was not a full representation with some nights louder than others but the following week and current week had been much worse. Miss X said the lights were still an issue every night they were turned on.
46. The Council wrote to Miss X in mid-August to confirm it had completed its review of her diaries, footage and noise monitoring. The Council said there was some work to do in relation to ASB. The Council said people noise could be heard on the recordings, plus traffic, gulls and general city street noise. There was also music on a couple of occasions including one when the business was closed. The Council would need to review and address the light issue through a home visit. The Council explained there was not enough evidence to show a statutory nuisance or prove breaches of the current premises licence currently. The Council noted the license had been granted a long time ago and the business model had changed since that time. The Council intended to write to the business to confirm there were management issues associated with the use of the outside area and that a review of the management plan for the garden area was needed. The Council noted it had no formal right to request one but it would encourage a variation to the licence to modernise it and add additional controls about music and the use of the outside area.
47. Miss X explained with reference to the incident when music was heard despite the business being closed that the noise was still coming from the premises during this time but there were still people in the garden with music and suggested this was staff after hours. Miss X stated the lights were still causing an issue and she would try to video this. Miss X asked for a copy of the recordings as she felt they captured many times when the music was excessive. Miss X also said the gulls made noise when they were also disturbed by the nuisance.
48. The Council confirmed at the end of August that it had not yet had an opportunity to meet with the licensing police due to holiday commitments but this was now arranged for the following week. It was hoped that the light issue could be resolved when it wrote to the business as well as any management issues around the use of the premises when closed. The Council confirmed it would return the recordings when it had completed the investigation. The Council says it discussed Miss X’s private right of action and was advised she had access to a legal expert. I have not seen a contemporaneous record for this advice and would remind the Council it is good practice to keep such a record.
49. Miss X provided further video evidence during September.
50. The Council wrote to the business in September. The Council provided an update to Miss X towards the end of September about its correspondence with the business. The Council noted a video clip after 11pm of a group singling loudly and drunkenly which should have been stopped by security staff and this would be raised with the business.
51. Miss X contacted the Council in October to say the music and lights were getting worse. The Council sent a reminder to the business. The Council provided an update to Miss X in November about the above action and that it would arrange evening visits before the new year.
52. The Council sent a further reminder to the business in January 2025. The Council also contacted Miss X to explain the proposed home visit was to witness the strobe lighting as the week of noise monitoring had not identified a statutory noise nuisance but if this had changed it would need to complete further noise monitoring.
53. The Council subsequently confirmed that officers would visit that week to witness the lights and install noise monitoring. This could be left for two weekends to provide the best chance of recording the times when Miss X was most affected. The Council would review the footage and could then arrange weekend visits if it was considered these were required. There was an email exchange during this period that suggested the Council would advise the business of when the monitoring would take place. Miss X questioned this approach and the Council confirmed this was not the case and apologised for the poor wording. Miss X rejected further noise monitoring and advised she would send her own recordings.
54. Miss X’s MP wrote to the Council towards the end of January about ongoing issues of noise, light and ASB being experienced by Miss X. The Council responded at the end of January to confirm the investigation was ongoing and the evidential burden to prove either a statutory nuisance or to instigate a review of the premises licence was significant and complex.
55. The Council completed a night visit at the end of January into the early hours of the next day. This started with a visit to the local area with no issues identified and then three hours mostly in a bedroom overlooking the garden of the premises garden. The music noise was not found to be an issue as it could barely be heard. It was a little louder with the window open but was not an issue. There was a very short period when the music level increased but not to statutory nuisance levels. Miss X explained the noise witnessed was what they heard most nights. The lights were on but not causing an issue. It was noted there was an issue in Miss X’s video clip which showed they could be controlled. There were some lights that could and should be altered. The crowd noise was not found to be an issue and there were no ASB issues witnessed. There was nothing deliberate or excessive but a management plan for the garden late at night and the doors in and out and lighting did need some resolution. The Council says it further discussed Miss X’s private right of action during this visit.
56. The Council confirmed to the business that the adjustments had not resolved the issue as light was still being directed towards a block of residential properties to the rear of the garden area.
57. The Council received a reply from the business in early February to state the lights had been reprogrammed and it was hoped this would resolve the issue. If not, the business would explore the use of electric blinds to upper windows.
58. The Council met with the business in mid-February to discuss the lighting issue. The business stated it had disconnected the particular lighting rig and undertook regular monitoring of music levels. The Council advised that better management of the use of the garden area was required.
59. The Council wrote to Miss X in mid-February to advise after reviewing all the evidence it could not say there was a statutory nuisance from noise or impact on a relevant licence objective. However, the Council wished to continue its investigation. The Council had advised the business about taking all reasonable measures to control music and customers in the garden and had raised the lighting issue.
60. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment at Miss X’s property in mid-February for a period of 10 days. The Council picked up the noise monitoring equipment towards the end of February. No recordings had been made and Miss X advised there had been no music issue to record and she had noticed staff were more proactive on loud customers in the garden. The lights had not been an issue.
61. The Council confirmed to Miss X it would close the complaint but it could be reopened at any time if matters deteriorated.

My consideration

62. I should explain that our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
63. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s assessment that the issues from the business did not amount to statutory nuisance or actionable anti-social behaviour. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if something is a statutory nuisance or anti-social behaviour. Deciding that something does, or does not, constitute a statutory nuisance or anti-social behaviour is a matter of professional judgment for an appropriately trained council officer. My role is to consider whether the Council properly reached its decision.
64. I have taken into account the steps the Council took to consider the issues reported by Miss X, and the information it took into account when reaching its decisions.
65. In responding to Miss X’s reports during the period my investigation has covered of November 2023 to February 2025 the Council has:

• contacted Miss X;
• contacted the business about the matters reported;
• considered the information Miss X provided including diaries and video evidence;
• visited both the site and Miss X’s home to help gather evidence and verify her reports; and
• installed noise monitoring equipment at Miss X’s property twice.

66. I appreciate Miss X may disagree, but I am satisfied the Council took appropriate steps to find out if Miss X’s reports amounted to a statutory nuisance or actionable anti-social behaviour and properly considered the evidence before reaching its decision. The Council decided there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance and the activities of the business did not constitute actionable anti-social behaviour to meet the threshold for a licence review. The Council advised Miss X of this outcome. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
67. The Council had already accepted it closed Miss X’s complaint in March 2024 without contacting her first to check if the matter had been resolved. This is fault. I am satisfied this fault introduced some avoidable delay into the process and damaged Miss X’s faith in the Council.
68. However, I have noted the Council’s actions in its apology to Miss X for the breakdown in communication and the reopening of her case towards the end of May with the immediate offer of a home visit and noise monitoring. The Council also arranged for Miss X to have access to another officer and provided management oversight to try and address her concerns. I am satisfied the action already taken by the Council provides a suitable personal remedy to Miss X and the Ombudsman would not seek more. However, I do make a service recommendation below to avoid a reoccurrence.
69. I have seen no evidence that the Council acted in bad faith in its dealings with Miss X or that it was advising the business of the timing of monitoring taking place. There were some other short periods of delay during the investigation which I do not consider were excessive or constitute fault in the context of a complex investigation.

Back to top

Action

70. The Council has agreed to take the following action within two months of my final decision:
1. review its relevant procedures to ensure reports of nuisance and/or anti-social behaviour are not closed without contact with the complainant to check if the matter has been resolved; and
2. ensure an adequate record is kept when complainants are advised of their private right of action under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
71. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

72. I find fault. The Council has already taken action to remedy the injustice and agreed further action to avoid a reoccurrence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman