Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s response to, and investigation of, their complaints about a neighbour’s excessive noise and anti-social behaviour. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in the inaction, delays and failures in its investigation and decision-making process from 2024 to July 2025. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising and making a payment to acknowledge the distress caused and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s response to their complaints about a neighbour’s excessive noise and anti-social behaviour.
2. They complained about the neighbour’s behaviour in 2022, and again in 2023. Mr and Mrs X say the Council failed to properly investigate and take appropriate action in response to their ongoing complaints about the noise and anti-social behaviour and keep them properly informed about their case.
3. The neighbour’s behaviour and noise during this period have had a significant impact on their mental health, wellbeing and day-to -day life at home. The Council’s failures have caused them additional avoidable upset and worry about the situation and what action, if any, the Council would take in response to their complaints.
4. They want the Council to properly investigate and consider the action it should take in response to their complaints about the neighbour's behaviour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
6. 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)
7. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I have not investigated the Council’s actions after it issued its final response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint in July 2025. But I have considered the continuing impact and injustice caused by its failures in the period from 2023 to July 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr and Mrs 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

What should have happened

Statutory nuisances

13. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
14. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
15. 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.

16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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

20. 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 a short period, to try to address the problem informally.
21. 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.
22. 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.

Anti-social behaviour

23. 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.
24. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• 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.

25. 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.

Community protection notices

26. Councils and the police can issue community protection notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is unreasonable and having a negative effect on the community's quality of life. 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.
27. Councils must issue a written warning in advance of a CPN. The council should decide how long after the written warning to wait before serving a CPN. A person can appeal a CPN in the magistrates' court within 21 days of receiving it if they disagree with the council’s decision.
28. In some instances, antisocial behaviour may cause a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act. In such cases councils can serve both a CPN and an abatement notice on the perpetrator, if they consider it necessary.

What happened

29. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

2023: Mr and Mrs X’s noise complaint

30. Mr and Mrs X first complained to the Council about a neighbour, N’s anti-social behaviour and excessive noise in 2022. Reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour are investigated and responded to by the Council’s Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team (CSNN team).
31. In 2023 Mr and Mrs X made a further complaint to the Council. They reported N was making excessive noise during the day and overnight. This included continued loud banging on adjoining walls, repeated door slamming, loud music and shouting. They said the police were aware of the issues with N.

Early 2024: Council’s initial response

32. The Council wrote to N about the noise complaint. N’s relative responded and queried the reports of noise. They also said N had a number of health issues.
33. The noise and disturbance continued. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to install noise recording equipment. A CSNN team officer noted while at Mr and Mrs X’s home they suddenly heard five to six really loud bangs from N’s adjoining property, and the noise was so loud “it felt like the room shook”.
34. The Council installed noise recording equipment at Mr and Mrs X’s home. CSNN team officers listened to the recordings and noted audible banging from N’s property at unreasonable times and that, in their opinion, the noise was bad and further action should be taken.

Council’s decision about further action

35. The Council became aware N had a possible mental health condition.
36. The CSNN team reviewed their officers’ notes about the noise recordings. They noted that if the noise was at the level of a statutory noise nuisance the Council was required by law to serve an abatement notice. They also noted it was not something they would enforce however but would try to find a solution with social services.
37. The CSNN team recorded their decision that the case should be investigated as a statutory nuisance. They also noted as the alleged perpetrator had a possible mental health condition, support services would have to be engaged before any further action to progress and investigate the case.
38. I have not seen any information showing the Council updated Mr and Mrs X about this decision.

Mid-2024: Council’s further action

39. The Council arranged a meeting with N and their relative to discuss the noise issues. N did not attend the meeting.
40. The Council understood N’s mental health condition was causing their anti-social behaviour and noise. It discussed support options for N with their relative.
41. Mr and Mrs X told the Council, N’s noise and anti-social behaviour was continuing. They asked for an update on the investigation. The CSNN team noted Mr and Mrs X had a strong case and if there was no progress with support for N, they should consider issuing a Community Protection Warning (CPW - a written warning issued in advance of a CPN).
42. The Council asked support services and N’s relative about N’s current situation.
43. It told Mr and Mrs X it was limited in what it could say about the situation but referred to a likely change regarding N. It said it would update them again the following week.
44. The Council contacted Mr and Mrs X again. They said N’s noise and anti-social behaviour was continuing. The Council then established there had been no change in N’s situation.
45. The Council told N by letter it was still receiving complaints about their noise. It asked N to contact it to discuss the issues and an informal solution. It said if there was no reply, and noise nuisance causing a detrimental impact on the complainant continued, the Council had a legal duty to take formal action to stop or reduce the noise.

Late 2024: installation of noise recording equipment

46. Mr and Mrs X reported continued noise by N. The Council installed noise recording equipment again.
47. Mr and Mrs X also told the Council the police had recently contacted them about allegations N had made. They said they were considering a complaint about both the police and the Council’s failures to act in response to their concerns about N’s behaviour.
48. A CSNN team officer listened to the noise recordings. They noted noise nuisance which they thought was a statutory nuisance in line with the history of the complaint.
49. Mr and Mrs X asked the CSNN team for an update. They said something had to be done about the noise immediately as they felt they would snap. The Council told them it would hold a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting of professionals involved with N. But it had to balance N’s human rights and their capacity to understand the impact of a formal notice and change their behaviour. It agreed to update Mr and Mrs X regularly.

MDT meeting

50. The Council told Mr and Mrs X it had arranged the MDT meeting. They said N’s behaviour was now affecting their own mental health. The Council told them it understood the situation was difficult to live with, but it had to balance the needs of all involved.
51. The record of the MDT meeting, attended by the CSNN team and mental health support professionals, said:

• with this amount of evidence, the CSNN team would normally consider serving a CPW on N using ASB legislation. If the noise and behaviour continued this would lead to a CPN. The service of a statutory noise abatement notice, which if breached, could lead to court action was another option;
• the team had so far tried to deal with the noise and behaviour issues informally because of N’s mental health condition and possible lack of insight into what formal action would mean; and
• Mr and Mrs X were significantly impacted by the noise issues. This was affecting their mental health and enjoyment of their home. They had also been caused distress by the police contact due to N’s allegations and confrontations with N in person.

52. Following the meeting the CSNN team told Mr and Mrs X:

• it had many actions to take relating to N’s mental health. It could not disclose the details, but N’s specific mental health condition was the cause of their behaviour affecting Mr and Mrs X;
• it could not pursue a prosecution because N was unable to understand or comply with the notice and would have a defence to the action. But mental health professionals would work through the possible avenues to try facilitate a change to N’s behaviour;
• under the law, a person with a mental health condition could only be detained or made to take medication if they were a harm to themselves or others. What Mr and Mrs X were experiencing was not deemed as “harm”; and
• it was contacting the police for further information. It would also meet with N and their relative to explain the Council’s enforcement powers.

53. Mr and Mrs X said they felt the Council was telling them they had to put up with the situation. The CSNN team discussed wellbeing support to help Mr and Mrs X cope with the situation and told them it would keep in touch.
54. The CSNN team then asked health professionals for advice about appropriate mental health support action to resolve the noise N was causing. It did not receive a substantive response.

Early 2025: Mr and Mrs X’s request for an update

55. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council what was happening. The CSNN team told them there were no significant updates and:

• its role was limited. It couldn’t take formal action. Mental health professionals had said N could not comply with the terms of a notice because of their mental health condition; and
• it was trying to get mental health professionals to take the lead role.

56. Mr and Mrs X told the team again they felt they were simply having to put up with the situation because none of the services were doing anything about it.
57. Following this call the CSNN team contacted health professionals again for advice and about a further MDT meeting.
58. The team recorded its decision to hold a further MDT meeting because: the noise was continuing; mental health interventions had not resulted in any change; and Mr and Mrs X were being affected.
59. Mr and Mrs X asked for updates. In a call with the CSNN team they said a recent incident outside the property had resulted in police involvement.
60. The team said it would contact the police and chase health professionals for a response.

April 2025: Mr and Mrs X’s complaint

61. Mr and Mrs X heard nothing more about the investigation. In April they complained to the Council about the way it had dealt with their complaints about N’s anti-social behaviour and noise. They said it had not taken any action to stop the noise. As a result, they had suffered sleep deprivation and stress affecting their health over the last few years and felt totally ignored by the Council.

MDT meeting

62. The CSNN team told Mr and Mrs X it had arranged a further MDT meeting.
63. This meeting was attended by the CSNN team, health and mental health professionals and the police.

May 2025: Council’s response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint

64. The Council told Mr and Mrs X in its response to their complaint:

• the investigation had established N’s behaviour was having an unreasonable impact on their day-to-day lives;
• it had identified early on N had a mental health condition. The police and the CSNN team had been involved but concluded, because of N’s condition, formal action was unlikely to result in positive change in behaviour;
• the team and mental health professionals were continuing to work with N to support their compliance; and
• it accepted there had been communication failures at times.

65. Mr and Mrs X were not happy with this response and asked us to investigate their complaint about the Council.

July 2025: Council’s final complaint response

66. The Council said:

• this was a complex case. The CSNN team were continuing to work with other teams involved and consider how it could support Mr and Mrs X:
• it was waiting for formal legal opinion about any further action it might be able to take; and
• it accepted there had been communication failures. It noted the commitment in its response to keep them informed and that it had not updated them since then. It understood the CSNN team had now been in touch.

Events after July 2025

67. The Council received legal advice about its duty to serve an abatement notice.
68. It then recorded a decision that, as significant work had been completed regarding N’s mental health issues and there had been no change to their behaviour, it would move the case to further investigation and install noise recording equipment.
69. It told Mr and Mrs X it had received legal advice and would pursue the investigation by gathering evidence through recording and witnessing the noise. The recording equipment was then installed.
70. The CSNN team reviewed the noise recordings. They noted these showed significant and extreme noise from N – shouting, repeatedly banging, and repeatedly swearing for long periods and at unreasonable times – and a clear possible statutory nuisance. It should contact N to allow them the opportunity to change their behaviour.
71. In response to a call from Mr and Mrs X the Council said it would attempt a meeting with N supported by mental health professionals.
72. Mr and Mrs X asked for a further update. The CSNN team told them it would be arranging visits to witness the noise and writing to N.
73. It wrote to N about the continued complaints and need for a meeting. It warned N that if the noise was causing a statutory nuisance, the Council had a legal duty to take action to stop or reduce the noise.

2026: Current position

74. Mr and Mrs X told the Council N had been charged with a criminal offence.
75. They then told it there had been no significant noise from N for a few months, and later, that N was no longer living at the property.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

76. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.

The Council’s investigation process

77. I have reviewed the Council’s response and investigation of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints about N’s anti-social behaviour and noise. In my view there were significant failures in its investigation process, together with periods of delay and inaction.
78. I appreciate it took some weeks, after the Council’s initial letter to N about the noise complaint in 2023, to make contact with N’s relative, obtain information about N’s health issues and arrange a meeting with the relative to discuss support for N to address the mental health condition causing the anti-social behaviour. And I note the CSNN team’s 2024 decision the case should be investigated as a statutory nuisance and support services engaged before any taking any further action.
79. But by mid-2024 the Council had established:

• the level of noise was likely to amount to a statutory nuisance;
• the police had been involved with issues caused by N’s behaviour;
• it had not made any progress with its informal action of trying to work with N and their relative to obtain support to address the behaviour; and
• there had been no change in N’s noise and anti-social behaviour and this continued to substantially interfere with Mr and Mrs X’s enjoyment of their home and significantly impact their wellbeing.

Delays and periods of inaction

80. The Council failed to take any substantive action to review or progress the investigation:
1. from mid-2024 when it:

• had information confirming the noise was likely causing a statutory nuisance and the significant detrimental impact on Mr and Mrs X;
• focused solely on concerns around N’s ability to understand and respond to a formal notice without any proper consideration of: how or whether this affected its duties to take action to stop a statutory nuisance and tackle anti-social behaviour; and the significant impact on Mr and Mrs X’s wellbeing; and
• failed to properly review its duty to take formal action by serving an abatement notice and consider whether it should obtain legal advice about this.
2. from mid-2024, when it established the potential change in N’s situation would not happen, until Mr and Mrs X asked for an update.
3. following the 2024 MDT meeting, even though it noted at the meeting the noise was likely a statutory nuisance and the significant distress N’s behaviour was causing Mr and Mrs X.
4. following its decision in 2025 to hold a further MDT meeting, which appears to have been prompted only by Mr and Mrs X’s request for an update. It did not hold this meeting until mid-2025, and after Mr and Mrs X’s April 2025 complaint to the Council.
5. following the 2025 MDT meeting. Other than obtaining a response to its enquiry to N’s GP, it failed to take any action until it decided to ask for legal advice on its duty to take action regarding the noise nuisance.

81. I consider these periods of delay and inaction were fault by the Council.
82. I also note the pattern of inaction - with steps only being taken following contact by Mr and Mrs X - continued after the Council’s final response in July 2025. The Council decided (again) in late 2025 the noise was likely a statutory nuisance but failed to take any substantive action until the end of 2025.

Failures in the investigation process

83. I have identified the following failures in the Council’s investigation of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints about N’s noise and anti-social behaviour:
1. a continuing failure to take action to progress the investigation until prompted by contact from Mr and Mrs X.
2. a failure to work with the police regarding the issues caused by N’s behaviour. I haven’t seen any evidence it contacted the police when Mr and Mrs X told them about their involvement in 2023. There is no evidence the Council liaised with the police until the 2024 MDT meeting. There is no evidence of any further contact from then until after the start of the criminal proceedings.
3. no proper consideration of the Council’s duty to take formal action to stop a statutory nuisance and how or whether this might be affected by N’s mental health condition. The Council:

• had established by mid-2024 the noise by N was a likely statutory nuisance;
• had worked for some time to engage N and their relative with appropriate support for N’s mental health condition, but these attempts failed; and
• continued to tell Mr and Mrs X it could not take formal action because of N’s mental health condition. But these assertions were not based on legal advice. It did not ask for this until 2025.
4. a failure to properly consider the impact on Mr and Mrs X. The Council repeatedly told them it had to consider N’s human rights. I haven’t seen any evidence this statement was made after proper consideration of: how or whether this affected its duties to take action to stop a statutory nuisance and tackle anti-social behaviour; and the acknowledged significant impact of N’s behaviour on Mr and Mrs X and their human rights.

84. These failures were fault by the Council.

Communication and complaint handling

85. The Council has accepted it failed to keep Mr and Mrs X properly informed about the investigation. They had to continually chase for updates and even when it told them it would update them regularly, it failed to do so.
86. I also consider the complaint responses in May and July 2025 gave an inaccurate impression there was ongoing work by mental health professionals to support a change in N’s behaviour when in fact little, if anything, was being done.

Impact of the Council’s failures

87. The Council failed to make any positive progress with its investigation or decisions about formal actions it should take to stop or reduce N’s noise and anti-social behaviour.
88. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X feel the change in N’s behaviour following the initiation of a criminal prosecution by the police shows formal action by the Council would have resulted in a positive outcome. But I am not able to say with certainty what difference it would have made to N’s behaviour had the Council decided to obtain legal advice and/or serve formal notices before 2025. I don’t consider I can say it is more likely that had a formal notice been served and not complied with, the Council would have decided to enforce this by court action.
89. However, because of the inaction, delays and failures in the investigation, Mr and Mrs X were left in a period of uncertainty and worry from mid-2024 until the end of 2025 about the outcome of the investigation and whether any action would be taken to stop or reduce noise, all the while enduring the continuing and significant impact of N’s extreme behaviour on their lives and wellbeing.
90. And despite establishing from the outset early in 2024 the noise was likely a statutory nuisance and having significant detrimental impact on Mr and Mrs X, the Council’s investigation failed to achieve any positive progress. Nothing substantive was done by the Council to stop or reduce the noise, and it is not surprising Mr and Mrs X felt they were simply having to put up with the situation.
91. The Council’s failures have also caused Mr and Mrs X the additional distress from the uncertainty that, had the investigation and decision-making process been properly completed, positive action to address N’s noise and behaviour issues may have happened sooner.

Service improvements

92. The Council has told us, in response to our enquiries, it acknowledges Mr and Mrs X’s case had been open for a long time without any satisfactory conclusion, and this was not best practice. It also accepted the distress N’s behaviour caused them.
93. It said it had identified learning from the case and was developing a local protocol for cases of statutory nuisance where either the victim or the alleged perpetrator had a diagnosed mental health condition or disorder which affected their behaviour.
94. It has also told us it currently reviewing its service structure and approach to addressing community safety and supporting vulnerable residents. It is developing a wider programme of work to ensure the Council is meeting its regulatory responsibilities and also has a defined space and role (separate from the regulatory process) to support vulnerable members of the community.
95. It has agreed to carry out the service improvements set out in paragraph 97 as part of this work.

Back to top

Action

96. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the inaction, delays and failures in its investigation and decision-making process from mid-2024 to July 2025 and the distress caused by these failures. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
2. pay Mr and Mrs X £500 to recognise the significant distress, worry and uncertainty caused by its failures. This is a symbolic payment based on our guidance on remedies
97. And within five months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide us with details of its new local protocol for these types of cases;
2. review its procedures for liaising and recording contact with the police in cases in which it is known there is police involvement or where it might be appropriate; and
3. review its processes for monitoring the progress of investigations and keeping complainants informed, and make any changes needed to ensure cases are not allowed to drift and complainants are properly informed about their case.
98. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

99. I find fault causing injustice. The Council should take the above action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman