Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take sufficient action in response to his complaint about noise and anti-social behaviour from his neighbour’s property. There were faults by the Council with how it dealt with Mr X’s concerns, its poor communication with him and its delays with its complaint handling. This caused injustice to Mr X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take sufficient action in response to his complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour from his neighbour’s property.
2. Mr X said the matter massively affected his mental and physical health. He said it also caused him significant distress; anxiety and it affected his work.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
6. 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 and have not investigated

7. I have investigated matters from February 2024 to February 2025. This covers the 12-month period before Mr X made a complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2025.
8. I have not exercised discretion to investigate matters before February 2024. These are late complaints, and I consider it reasonable for Mr X to have complained about the matters earlier. There are no good reasons to investigate them now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. 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

Statutory Nuisances

11. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’ such as noise from premises.
12. 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.

13. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers 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.
14. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
15. If a council decides a noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, it must serve an abatement notice requiring the perpetrator to stop. But if a council decides that the noise made does not amount to a statutory nuisance, it can continue to use informal intervention to try to solve the problem. Examples of such action may include writing to the person causing the nuisance or suggesting mediation.

Anti-social Behaviour

16. 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.
17. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave councils a general duty to take action to tackle ASB, which is defined as conduct:

• that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
• is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
• is capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.

18. Community Protection Warning is a formal warning issued by authorities such as councils and the police to address persistent ASB.
19. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is the ASB case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
20. When a person asks for a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether it meets the local threshold. Relevant local bodies should agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.
21. If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies should carry out the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then tell the complainant the outcome.
22. Asking for an ASB case review is not the same as making a formal complaint against a council for how it has handled reports of ASB.
23. We can only consider councils’ actions in an ASB case review. We cannot investigate or make findings about any contribution made by other relevant bodies, such as the police.

The Council’s policy

24. The Council can investigate loud noise that happens often like loud music or television.
25. The Council cannot investigate normal noise disturbances that occur once or twice and that is not unreasonable such as:

• daily activities like doors closing, walking across floors or up and down stairs
• noise from household appliances unless at antisocial hours
• shouting, raised voices, arguments, laughing.

26. There is an out of hours noise team opens from 6pm to 2am (Thursday to Sunday). If the service user’s call in not answered by the team, it will return the call within an hour and it will try to conduct a visit to listen to the reported noise but may not be able to visit where the team is busy. If the team visits and the noise is unreasonable, the team will try to talk to the alleged perpetrator and may issue a verbal warning.

The Council’s complaint procedure

27. The Council has a two-stage complaint procedure. The Council’s response timescale is within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.

Background

28. In September 2023, Mr X started experiencing noise disturbance from his neighbour’s property especially noise from game sound effects and their television. Mr X raised his concerns with the Council immediately.
29. The Council said it asked Mr X for more information about the type of noise disturbance he experienced, and that the Council could conduct a site visit to assess the situation. The Council said Mr X declined the visit.
30. The Council said it issued warning letters to Mr X’s neighbour about noise disturbance from their property.
31. The Council closed the case when it did not receive further reports from Mr X.

Key events

32. In April 2024, Mr X reported further noise disturbance from his neighbour’s property to the Council on three occasions. Mr X said the issue had been ongoing which impacted greatly on his physical and mental health. The Council’s record showed:

• an officer attempted to call Mr X and left a message for him to provide it with more details about the disturbance
• it advised Mr X to continue to report any disturbance to it if the issue persisted
• it did not conduct any site visit because Mr X’s reports were received outside normal working hours
• it sent Mr X an email which stated the Council did not investigate domestic noise, it referred Mr X to its website for more information
• it said no further action would be taken and that the case would be closed.

33. The same month, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about how it had dealt with his concerns about the noise disturbance and that the Council’s various teams refused to engage with him. Mr X also complained the Council’s email to him was rude and dismissive.
34. In July, the Council issued its stage 1 response to Mr X’s complaint. The Council:
1. said it had received no further complaints from Mr X since April and that it had advised Mr X that the Council did not investigate domestic noise complaints such as the noise made by his neighbour.
2. accepted it did not provide Mr X with sufficient information about how the Council could have addressed and investigated his noise disturbance concerns and the options he could have explored as the Council could not address his concerns.
3. upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised to him for its poor and confusing communication with him.
4. said an officer would contact and provide Mr X with further information about what support/options were available to him for future purposes.
35. The Council contacted Mr X and discussed his reported concerns. The Council offered to conduct a site visit to assess the alleged noise complaint, but Mr X declined. Mr X said the Council also advised it could take actions against his neighbour and the neighbour’s landlord. Mr X agreed with the Council, but he asked the Council not to act until he advised it to commence action against the alleged perpetrator. Mr X said this was because he wanted to give his neighbour a final opportunity to stop the disturbance.
36. Between September and December, Mr X reported further noise disturbances and ASB from his neighbour’s property to the Council on several occasions. These included loud noise from his neighbour’s television, shouting and sound effects from games. On one of the incidents, Mr X said when he went to his neighbour’s property to tell them about the loud noise, he was assaulted by his neighbour which he reported to the police.
37. Mr X wrote to the Council in December. He said he was glad his complaint was upheld but that the disturbances and ASB from his neighbour’s property had continued and worsened since the Council contacted him after its stage 1 response. Mr X said he then tried to contact the Council to ask it to commence the proposed action it had agreed to take against his neighbour and the landlord, but said he received no response from the Council.
38. In December, the Council requested joint working to address Mr X’s ongoing noise and ASB reports. The following actions were taken:

• a case review was held by the Council and the police.
• the Council and the police contacted/informed Mr X’s neighbour’s management agency/landlord about the noise disturbance and ASB from their tenant’s property and was advised to take appropriate action to address the issue with their tenant. It said failure to act could lead to the Council issuing the landlord a community protection warning.
• the management agency/landlord took some steps such as issuing Mr X’s neighbour warnings to address the noise and ASB concerns.

39. In mid-December, Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint due to the ongoing disturbance, its poor communication with him and its failure to properly deal with his complaint.
40. In February 2025, the Council issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint. The Council explained it had taken actions to address Mr X’s noise and ASB concerns but that it was unable to share the details with him due to data protection regulation. The Council accepted its delay with dealing with Mr X’s case and it apologised to him for any inconvenience caused to him. The Council told Mr X to continue to report any ongoing noise and ASB concerns which could lead to further investigation.
41. Mr X remained dissatisfied with how the Council dealt with his noise and ASB concerns, and he made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
42. Mr X’s neighbour subsequently moved out of their property.

Analysis

Noise Disturbance and ASB

43. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. This means it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was a statutory nuisance; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council investigated the noise disturbance and ASB concerns correctly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
44. In this case, Mr X reported noise disturbance and ASB incidents to the Council on several occasions between April and December 2024. We expect councils to act in a timely manner to concerns raised with it by its service users. The Council closed Mr X’s case in April, and it did not take any significant action about Mr X’s concerns until July 2024 after Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. This was a delay of approximately three months, and it was fault which caused injustice to Mr X.
45. I also find fault by the Council for its failure to properly investigate Mr X’s noise disturbance concerns. While I note the Council said Mr X did not submit further reports to it after April 2024, there was no evidence to show the Council investigated the three reports he made to it in April as already stated above. For instance, there was no evidence to show the Council conducted site visits and there was also no evidence to show the Council considered or actually installed a noise-monitoring equipment at Mr X’s property to assess the reported noise disturbance. And then the Council closed Mr X’s case. These were faults and caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mr X in not knowing whether the Council considered his concerns properly.
46. The law says that councils may not investigate all noise complaints especially household noises such as those considered to be ‘day-to-day’ noise made during the day. I note the Council said it has no power to investigate domestic noise complaints. However, I find the Council was in no position to conclude that the noise disturbance reported by Mr X was not an actionable noise. This is because the Council did not gather any evidence to establish for example the type, pattern and duration of the noise to have come to its conclusion. This was fault. It caused distress, frustration, uncertainty and confusion to Mr X.
47. But I find the injustice caused to Mr X by the Council’s delays and its failure to properly investigate the noise disturbance and ASB incidents was mitigated. This is because in July, Mr X declined the Council’s offer to conduct a site visit to assess the alleged noise complaint and he also asked the Council to put on hold the action it had proposed to take against the alleged perpetrator until he advised the Council to do so.
48. Councils have a responsibility to advise victims about the ASB case review process, including how to request a review, what the threshold is for activating the review, and what to expect during the review. There was no evidence to show the Council informed Mr X about the ASB case review process given the multiple noise disturbance and ASB incidents he reported to the Council between April and December 2024 without any satisfactory resolution provided. This was fault. It caused Mr X uncertainty as to whether his case was properly considered.
49. However, I find the steps the Council took from December 2024 to investigate Mr X’s concerns were not faults. The Council requested joint working and held a case review with another agency, contacted Mr X’s neighbour’s management agency/landlord and warnings were issued to Mr X’s neighbour to address the noise and ASB complaints.

Poor Communication

50. The Council already accepted and apologised to Mr X for its poor communication with him about its investigation process into alleged noise nuisance and ASB concerns. This was fault. But I find the Council’s apology is not a sufficient remedy in line with our guidance on remedies, so I will address this under the ‘action’ section below.

Complaint Handling

51. Mr X made his complaint in April 2024, and the Council issued its stage 1 response in July 2024. This was approximately 11 weeks delay. Similarly, at its stage 2, the Council took a total of 9 weeks to issue its response to Mr X’s escalation request (December 2024 – February 2025). The Council’s delays were faults and not in line with its complaints procedure. This caused distress to Mr X.

Back to top

Action

52. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Mr X and make him a symbolic payment of £150 to acknowledge the injustice caused to him by the Council’s faults as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• by training or other means, remind relevant staff of the importance of taking reasonable steps to properly investigate noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour concerns raised by the Council’s service users. Also, ensure the Council’s assessment and investigation into these concerns are completed in a timely manner
• ensure the Council properly communicates with its service users and provide them with sufficient information about how the Council considers and investigates noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour concerns
• provide its service users with clear information about the anti-social behaviour review process in a timely manner should they wish to request the review
• remind relevant staff the importance of adhering to the Council’s complaint process timescales.

53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman