Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to enforce an abatement notice, which it issued after establishing a statutory noise nuisance. And we cannot investigate a complaint about the Council’s decision not to evict its tenant for causing the nuisance, because the law does not allow us to. We have therefore discontinued our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr B.
2. Mr B complains the Council has not taken effective action to enforce against a noise nuisance caused by his neighbour. He says this means he is unable to enjoy peace and quiet in his own property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.

Back to top

What I found

7. In March 2025 Mr B submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. He said he had reported noise nuisance from his neighbour more than two years before, and, after investigation, the Council had served an abatement notice. However, the nuisance was ongoing. As the neighbour was a council tenant, Mr B believed the Council had enough evidence to justify evicting them.
8. The Council responded in May. It said the Council’s housing and anti-social behaviour departments had no record of any complaint about the neighbour since December 2023. It asked Mr B to contact the relevant housing officer if he wished to report ongoing nuisance.
9. Mr B then raised a stage 2 complaint. He said his complaint was to the Council as a whole, not a specific department, and that he had been told a long time ago the housing officer would contact him, but never did. Mr B reiterated his belief the Council should evict the neighbour, and said it had sent them a letter to remind them the abatement notice was still in force. Mr B said the Council had failed to share this information internally, and complained the Council expected him to contact multiple departments.
10. Mr B said he had submitted 10 new recordings of noise nuisance to the Council since April, as he had been asked to do, but that the situation had not improved since the Council had last written to the neighbour.
11. In response, the Council explained its environmental health department had a duty to investigate noise complaints under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It said it had served an abatement notice on the neighbour in August 2023, but had not seen evidence since then that would support prosecution for breaching the notice. The Council explained the notice did not prevent the neighbour from playing music entirely. The Council said, having reviewed Mr B’s more recent recordings, it was making arrangements to install noise monitoring equipment at Mr B’s home.
12. The Council said its housing department was responsible for deciding whether a council tenant was in breach of their tenancy agreement, and whether it should take enforcement action. It assured Mr B the two departments share information where relevant, but said it was helpful if he could copy in both the housing and environmental health officers into his correspondence.
13. Mr B then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in June.

Back to top

Legislative background

Statutory nuisance

14. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.

Abatement notices

21. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay issuing an abatement notice for up to seven days, to try to address the problem informally.
22. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.
23. A person who receives an abatement notice has a right to appeal it in the magistrates’ court. If they can show the court they have done everything reasonable to prevent or minimise the nuisance, the court may decide the abatement notice is not appropriate.

Back to top

Analysis

24. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
25. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels strongly it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
26. In this case, the Council has two roles – as the local authority responsible for enforcing against statutory nuisances, and as the neighbour’s landlord.
27. I understand Mr B believes the Council should evict the neighbour because of the noise nuisance. However, as noted previously, we have no power to investigate complaints about a council’s actions as a social landlord, including any decision about whether to evict someone. I therefore cannot consider this aspect of Mr B’s complaint.
28. What remains is the question of whether the Council’s environmental health department has been at fault, but I have seen nothing to suggest this is the case. After its initial investigation, and having established their noise amounted to a statutory nuisance, the Council served the neighbour with an abatement notice, requiring them to limit their noise or face possible prosecution. At the point of Mr B’s complaint, the Council the evidence it had seen did not show the neighbour had breached the notice.
29. I acknowledge Mr B may disagree with the Council’s assessment. However, this is a matter of professional judgement, which is not for me to make, and Mr B’s disagreement does not mean there is fault. In the absence of any evidence to suggest the Council has not made its decision properly, I do not have grounds to continue an investigation into Mr B’s complaint.
30. I note the Council said it was preparing to install noise monitoring equipment at Mr B’s property, having reviewed the more recent evidence he had submitted. If Mr B has any complaint about this installation, or the Council’s subsequent assessment of the evidence from the equipment, he will need to submit a new complaint about this, because it post-dates his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Decision

31. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman