Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complained the Council failed to take sufficient action to deal with their neighbour keeping animals at their home. We find the Council was at fault for failing to consider using all the powers available to it to tackle the issues. This caused Ms X and Mr Y distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Mr Y, make a payment to them and implement a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X and Mr Y complained the Council failed to take sufficient action to deal with their neighbour keeping animals at their home. They say their neighbour ran an illegal dog breeding business, breached site rules and created environmental nuisance through noise, smells and improper disposal of animal waste.
2. Ms X and Mr Y say the matter has affected them physically, emotionally and financially. They also say they lost the enjoyment of their home.

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 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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. Ms X and Mr Y complain about events from 2023 onwards. However, they did not refer their complaint to us April 2025. I will exercise discretion to investigate events from February 2024 onwards (when the Council issued its stage one response). However, I am satisfied Ms X and Mr Y could have bought events before February 2024 to us sooner and so I will not exercise discretion to investigate them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X, Mr Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms X, Mr Y and the Council 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

Anti-social behaviour

9. 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. They may approach a complaint 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 (The 2014 Act).
10. The 2014 Act introduced new powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. Councils may apply to the Courts for a civil injunction or issue a community protection notice (CPN). A CPN requires the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again. Not complying is an offence and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice. Councils must issue a community protection warning (CPW) in advance of a CPN.
11. The statutory guidance which accompanies the 2014 Act sets out some early and informal interventions which may be used to address ASB. This includes verbal and written warnings, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts.

The anti-social behaviour case review (formerly known as the Community Trigger)

12. The 2014 Act introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’. 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.

Statutory nuisances

13. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles.
14. 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.

15. 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.

Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) Regulations 2018

16. The regulations state anyone who breeds and sells dogs for commercial gain is classed as a business and needs a license.

What happened

17. This chronology provides an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
18. Ms X and Mr Y own a home in a mobile home park. Residents privately own their homes, but the Council is responsible for managing the site. The Council has a written agreement which applies to residents and their visitors. This agreement says residents must not keep any animals that cause a nuisance to other residents and residents must keep the mobile home in a sound state of repair.
19. Ms X and Mr Y have experienced issues with their former neighbour (Z) breeding and selling animals for several years. They complained to the Council about these issues in January 2024.
20. The Council responded in February and said its private sector housing team had been working with Z to address the issues. It had given Z a deadline to reduce the animals to an acceptable number. If Z did not achieve this, it would take appropriate action for breach of the conditions as per the written agreement.
21. The Council also said its environmental regulation team had been working with Z to determine whether any of the activities were licensable activities. This investigation was ongoing.
22. Mr Y emailed the Council at the end of April. He said Z had now increased the number of dogs. The smells and waste were getting worse, as well as the number of rats. The Council agreed to investigate the matter.
23. The Council visited Z and explained they needed to reduce the number of dogs in the home. It said it would continue to monitor the case.
24. Mr Y sent several photographs to the Council. He said Z was continuing to illegally breed animals. He also said the dogs were causing a noise and odour nuisance. The Council responded and said it had passed the matter to its legal team. It also said he would refer his complaint about noise and odour to its environmental health team.
25. The Council sent blank nuisance diary sheets for Mr Y to complete in August. He returned the diary sheets in September. He detailed odour, noise, pest and dog waste issues.
26. The Council had a telephone call with Ms X and Mr Y to discuss their concerns. They said Z had adult dogs and puppies on site and they were running a home boarding business. They also said there was an overpowering odour from animal urine and faeces. This was affecting the enjoyment of their home. They said Z removed the animals when they knew the Council was visiting.
27. Two environmental health officers visited Ms X and Mr Y at home a few days later. The officers witnessed dog faeces in Z’s back garden, but they noted it was not significant enough to be a statutory nuisance. The officers explained that statutory nuisance could not be considered for odour alone from a domestic premises. They asked Ms X and Mr Y for evidence Z was breeding animals.
28. The Council reviewed the diary sheets Mr Y provided in October. It decided there was not enough evidence of a statutory nuisance.
29. During its periodic searches, the Council found evidence Z had advertised animals for sale. It contacted the pet advertising company for more information. It also referred the matter to its legal department.
30. Mr Y chased the chased for an update at the end of October. The Council told him that it had referred the matter to its legal department.
31. The Council had internal discussions about whether to pursue enforcement action against Z for a breach of the written agreement. The legal team advised officers to gather evidence on whether Z was illegally breeding animals.
32. Ms X contacted the Council in mid-November and expressed frustration about its inaction. The Council said it was investigating, but it needed evidence to support any action it took.
33. The Council held a meeting with officers from its legal team, housing team and environmental health team at the end of November. Officers decided they needed further evidence for the illegal breeding case, and the evidential threshold was high. Housing officers discussed the difficulties of pursuing an eviction route.
34. The Council continued to gather evidence in December and January 2025.
35. Ms X and Mr Y referred their complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure in January 2025. They said the Council had failed to deal with the ongoing environmental health issues. They said there had been a lack of communication, and it had failed to make any progress.
36. The Council responded to the complaint in February. It said officers actively investigated the issues and engaged with Z. It was a complex case, and it had kept Ms X and Mr Y up to date with information as much as it could. It also said there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance.
37. The Council meet with a specialist in late March to review the evidence on file. It reviewed the file again in April and referred the matter back to its legal team.
38. Ms X and Mr Y referred their complaint to us in late April.
39. Z has now moved out of the area.

Back to top

Analysis

40. The Council has taken extensive action in this case. It visited the site regularly, referred the matter to its legal department to get advice on how to proceed and held regular meetings with officers across different departments. It reviewed the documents Ms X and Mr Y provided to determine whether there was a statutory nuisance and got specialist advice. The Council also took other action that I cannot disclose because of the nature of this case. I appreciate Ms X and Mr Y feel the Council did not make any progress. However, this was a complex case, and the Council had to get sufficient evidence to build a case against Z. The evidential threshold was high, and the Council had to ensure it had enough evidence before it could pursue enforcement action.
41. While I acknowledge the action the Council took, I have identified some failings in its handling of this case. The concerns Ms X and Mr Y reported were also allegations of ASB. ASB is conduct that has caused distress to a person and causes nuisance to a person’s home. While the Council considered the case from an environmental health and illegal breeding perspective, there is no evidence it considered its powers under the 2014 Act. This would have included whether to issue a CPW and CPN. This is fault.
42. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said it considered issuing CPWs and CPNs, but the ASB was not at a level that required those powers. However, there is no evidence, from the Council’s case notes and correspondence, that it considered this. I am satisfied if the Council had done so it would have recorded it in its extensive file.
43. The Council should have told Ms X and Mr Y about the ASB case review. They had made several reports of ASB within a six-month period, and they said it had not dealt with their reports sufficiently. It is not our role to say if their case met the threshold for review; the relevant bodies involved decide this. However, the Council was at fault for failing to signpost them to this process.
44. There were also some occasions when the Council failed to keep Ms X and Mr Y properly updated, and they had to chase for updates. I appreciate there were limitations on what the Council could disclose, but it should have provided Ms X and Mr Y a brief overview of what it was doing to progress the case.
45. The faults identified above have caused Ms X and Mr Y distress and upset. They have some uncertainty about what the outcome would have been if the Council had considered its powers under the 2014 Act and referred them to the ASB case review. I have made suitable recommendations to address this injustice.

Back to top

Action

46. By 13 February 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Ms X and Mr Y for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Ms X and Mr Y £150 for their frustration and uncertainty.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they signpost complainants to the ASB case review process after they have made several reports of ASB and continue to be dissatisfied with the outcome.

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

Back to top

Decision

48. There was fault by the Council, which caused Ms X and Mr Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman