Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Ms Y and Mr Z about how the Council dealt with its investigation into complaints about an alleged noise disturbance from their property which was submitted by their neighbour. There was fault by the Council for its failure to decide whether a statutory noise nuisance existed. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X is Ms Y and Mr Z’s representative, and he complained on their behalf.
2. Mr X said the Council’s investigation into complaints about an alleged noise nuisance made by Ms Y and Mr Z’s neighbour was flawed.
3. Mr X said while the Council’s investigation did not conclusively establish Ms Y and Mr Z as the source of the alleged noise; the Council reported the issue to its licensing team. And as a result, Ms Y and Mr Z’s tenancy was not renewed and that the matter caused them distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. 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)
8. I have not exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2023. These are late complaints and there are no good reasons to investigate them now.
9. I have investigated matters from July 2024 to July 2025. This covers the 12 months from when Ms Y and Mr Z’s complaint was made to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

12. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’ such as noise from premises.
13. 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.

14. 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.
15. 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.
16. If a council decides a noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, it must serve an abatement notice requiring the perpetrator to stop. An abatement notice can be appealed in the magistrates' court. 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

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.
18. 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.

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 statutory nuisance policy

24. Where a complaint is made to the Council by a person living within its area, the Council has to take steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint. Where a nuisance is established, the Council is required to serve an abatement notice.
25. The Council will use a range of methods to investigate nuisance complaints, such as verbal/written advice, site visits, diary sheets and installing noise monitoring equipment.

Background

26. Ms Y and Mr Z lived in a private rented property (a flat) which was managed by Company 1, the property licence holder.
27. In 2023, Ms Y and Mr Z’s neighbour (Neighbour 1) who lived in another flat within the same building, submitted reports of noise disturbance from their property to the Council and Company 1. The Council informed Ms Y and Mr Z of the allegations and they said the noise was not from their property.
28. The Council said it did not take further action into the matter because Company 1 was investigating the case.
29. Due to Neighbour 1’s repeated noise disturbance reports, the Council completed an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case review in June 2024. The decision was for the Council to conduct further investigation into the alleged noise nuisance reports.

Key events

30. Between July and August 2024, the Council informed and liaised with Neighbour 1 about its decision to install a noise monitoring machine in their property to record and monitor the noise disturbance they were experiencing.
31. In early September, the Council installed a noise monitoring equipment in Neighbour 1’s property for approximately one week.
32. Neighbour 1 continued to submit reports of noise disturbance to the Council. This included loud banging and stamping.
33. The Council reviewed the recordings obtained from the noise monitoring equipment and it identified sufficient evidence to support further action to be taken regarding the noise disturbance.
34. In October, the Council had a meeting and shared its findings with Company 1. They both agreed to conduct a joint home visit to Ms Y and Mr Z’s property to discuss the findings. The joint home visit was scheduled for mid-November.
35. Ms Y and Mr Z cancelled the home visit and said they were unable to provide an alternative date due to medical reasons and advice.
36. The Council considered alternative meeting arrangements. In early December, the Council and Company 1 held a virtual meeting with Ms Y and Mr Z. The Council shared its findings of the recordings from the noise monitoring equipment with Ms Y and Mr Z. They said throughout September (the month the noise monitoring machine was installed), they had regular appointments at the hospital, so the noise could not have been from their property. Ms Y and Mr Z also said they were not responsible for the noise as they could not identify anything in their daily routine which could cause the noise.
37. The Council asked Company 1 to provide it with the floor plans for the flats in the building where both parties lived. The Council reviewed the floor plans, and it concluded Ms Y and Mr Z’s flat was the only possible source of the noise disturbance experienced by Neighbour 1. This was because it found part of Ms Y and Mr Z’s flat overlapped Neighbour 1’s flat. The Council did not issue Ms Y and Mr Z with an abatement notice.
38. In mid-December, the Council held a meeting with Company 1. The Council said it decided not to serve Ms Y and Mr Z with an abatement notice, instead it asked Company 1 to issue them with a formal warning letter about the noise disturbance in line with its licensing requirements. The Council said this was based on its findings which showed the noise was causing a significant disturbance that required further action to be taken by Company 1 as the licence holder of the property.
39. A few days later, Company 1 issued Ms Y and Mr Z with a formal warning letter. The letter explained the reasons why the warning was issued and it stated that failure to stop the noise disturbance could affect their tenancy.
40. Between January and July 2025, Neighbour 1 continued to submit reports of ongoing noise disturbance to the Council.
41. The Council raised its concerns with Company 1 about the ongoing noise reports from Neighbour 1. The Council asked Company 1 for updates on further action it planned to take to resolve the matter.
42. In March, Company 1 issued Ms Y and Mr Z with a final warning letter. Company 1 acknowledged the family’s medical circumstance but explained it was obligated to inspect their property because of licensing requirements. The letter also stated that if they failed to grant access and failed to stop the ongoing noise disturbance, Company 1 would be unable to renew their tenancy agreement which was due to expire in April.
43. Ms Y and Mr Z told Company 1 that they were shocked to have received a final warning as it did not inform them of further reports/complaints of noise disturbance since the first warning was issued in December 2024. They maintained the noises did not come from their property. Ms Y and Mr Z made alternative arrangements and offered Company 1 and the Council to visit their property to carry out a noise transference test to further support the investigation into the matter.
44. Ms Y and Mr Z confirmed Company 1 did not renew their tenancy agreement.

Complaints

45. Ms Y and Mr Z made a complaint to the Council about its:

• failure to properly investigate, which included its failure to carry out a noise transference test without an explanation
• failure to reach a decision that the alleged noise disturbance complaints amounted to statutory nuisance and questioned why it failed to then issue them with an abatement notice as a result
• lack of communication and transparency with them as it did not provide them with details of the dates, times or severity of the alleged noise nuisance.

46. The Council in its complaint responses said it:

• followed statutory nuisance policy and relevant procedures when it investigated the noise nuisance reports. The Council explained it gathered and considered information from diary sheets, noise monitoring machine, floor plans and it concluded the noise came from Ms Y and Mr Z’s property.
• then decided and handed over the case to Company 1 as the property licence holder to take further action. The Council said once the case was transferred, Company 1 was responsible for communicating with Ms Y and Mr Z about the matter.
• considered the suggested noise transference test but it decided that such test would not help with the noise investigation.
• had a supporting role in the investigation of this case as Company 1 was the licence holder of the property and as such would normally take the lead on the investigation process.
• had not closed the case and it might still consider taking enforcement actions, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (which would be to serve an abatement notice), if it considered that would be the best way forward.

47. Ms Y and Mr Z remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response to their complaint, and they made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

48. Both councils and a private rented landlord have roles to play in investigating and resolving noise nuisance, but they serve different functions. While councils have the primary and legal responsibility to investigate and enforce noise complaints, the landlord is responsible for managing the tenancy and ensuring the tenant adheres to the terms of their tenancy agreement.
49. In this case, I am satisfied the Council took reasonable steps to investigate the repeated noise disturbance between July 2024 and December 2024. This was not fault.
50. However, when the Council found that the noise was causing significant disturbance, it should have decided whether it amounted to statutory noise nuisance. The Council failed to confirm whether a statutory noise nuisance existed. Had this been confirmed, the Council had no discretion, and it should have served Ms Y and Mr Z with an abatement notice. This was fault and not in line with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The lack of clarity caused uncertainty especially to Ms Y and Mr Z as to whether the Council established a statutory nuisance existed.
51. I find no fault by the Council for involving Company 1 as the licence holder of Ms Y and Mr Z’s property. However, the Council does not appear to recognise Company 1 does not have the powers to decide if there is a statutory noise nuisance and/or serve an abatement notice.
52. Company 1 is not a body in jurisdiction and as such its decision to terminate Ms Y and Mr Z’s tenancy agreement is out of the Ombudsman’s remit. Therefore, I cannot make a view or investigate this matter.

Back to top

Action

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

• apologise in writing to Ms Y and Mr Z and make them a symbolic payment of £250 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused to them by the Council’s faults as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• assign a senior officer to review Ms Y and Mr Z’s case and identify why decisions were not made on whether a statutory noise nuisance existed. The Council should provide an action plan to prevent future occurrence.

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

Back to top

Decision

55. I find fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman