Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council investigated the complainants’ reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by their neighbours. However, the Council was at fault because it did not act upon a request for an ASB case review. It has agreed to apologise for this. The Council is also at fault because its case review policy includes an unlawful eligibility requirement. The Council has agreed to amend its policy, and provide guidance for staff about the ASB case review process.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainants in this case as Miss T and Miss H. Miss T is complaining both in her own right, and also as representative for Miss H, her mother.
2. Miss T and Miss H complain the Council has not properly investigated their reports of noise nuisance by their neighbours. They say that, as a result, they are unable to properly enjoy their property, and frequently suffer disturbed sleep, with consequences for their mental and physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss T and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss T and Miss H live together in a block of ‘stacked’ properties. This means there is another property directly above their house, as well as adjoining neighbours to either side. Since mid-2024, they have made a series of allegations about anti-social behaviour, principally excess noise, by all three neighbours.
8. The Council has investigated these allegations, but concluded there is no evidence of statutory nuisance, with much of the noise reported by Miss T and Miss H coming from reasonable domestic activities, and that any problems may be the result of poor sound insulation between the properties. It has therefore not taken any enforcement action.
9. In January 2025 Miss T submitted a formal complaint to the Council. She complained the Council had taken no action against the neighbours, despite the fact they were “causing persistent noise disturbances”. Miss T said she had discussed the noise with the upstairs neighbour, as well as the landlord of that property, but without effect.
10. Miss T explained she was Miss H’s carer, but said she was unable to focus her attention on this role because of the need to complete noise diaries and make recordings. She described how the noise affected both their mental and physical health. Miss T said they had lived at the property for 20 years, without ever having made a formal complaint about previous tenants.
11. Miss T accused the Council’s case officer of poorly managing the case and not conducting a thorough investigation. She said he had dismissed her concerns, ignored the evidence she had submitted, and discriminated against her. She also said she had been “led to believe” the case officer had lost her noise diaries, distressing her. Miss T said she continued to make reports, both during and out of office hours, but council officers had not carried out site visits.
12. In response, the Council said:

• it had first registered a noise complaint from Miss T in October 2024. It sent her log sheets to complete, but she did not return it. When Miss T asked for an update on the case in December, the Council sent her more log sheets, explaining why it needed her to complete them;
• “after receiving [Miss T’s] complete logs sheets [in November]”, the Council said it allocated the case to an officer. The officer arranged to install noise monitoring equipment in the property on the same day, and collected it after nine days;
• the case officer reviewed a sample of the recordings in January, but concluded they did not provide evidence of a statutory nuisance. The Council explained the factors it must take into account when considering whether there is a statutory nuisance, and also that it must be judged from the position of the average person, and not a person with particular sensitivity;
• it acknowledged Miss T and Miss H’s situation, but said it had to investigate in accordance with the law. It explained why it was necessary for Miss T to submit evidence to the Council as part of its investigation, and reiterated it had identified a statutory nuisance in reviewing this evidence. The Council gave advice to Miss T on how she could take private action against the alleged nuisance;
• it did not agree the case officer had not properly managed the investigation. The Council apologised if Miss T had felt unsupported, but said it was confident the case officer had acted professionally;
• it explained how its out-of-hours service worked, but said it was not a ‘blue light’ (emergency) service. The Council explained it could not take enforcement action against reasonable domestic noise;
• there was no evidence of any malicious intent by the neighbours.

13. The Council therefore did not uphold Miss T’s complaint. In August, she referred it to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Legislative background

Statutory nuisances

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 a short period, 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.

Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

24. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.

Anti-social behaviour

25. 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.
26. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
27. 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.
28. 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. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan.
29. 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.

Back to top

Analysis

30. 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 ‘administrative fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
31. But 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 it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
32. In this case, that means it is not for me to decide, for example, whether Miss T and Miss H are suffering a statutory nuisance, or actionable anti-social behaviour. These remain matters for the Council to determine, regardless of any other findings I might make.
33. And, having reviewed its notes and records, I am satisfied there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council came to its conclusion about Miss T and Miss H’s allegations. Within the period covered by my investigation (which terminates in January 2025, when the Council responded to Miss T’s complaint), it took the steps we would expect to gather evidence; and, having reviewed it, the Council explained properly why it could not take any action. This was because the evidence showed only that the alleged nuisance was normal domestic noise.
34. I am aware the Council did not review all the recordings Miss T submitted. This is because she made significantly more recordings than it had asked her to, amounting to nearly 24 hours of material, and so the officer could not practically listen to it all.
35. Miss T says, in selecting a sample of the recordings, she believed the officer had disregarded much of the late-night noise, which was the biggest source of nuisance for her and Miss H. I therefore asked the Council to explain its methodology for selecting the recording sample. The Council said:

“A selection of recordings were selected, focusing more on the early morning and late night recordings, when background levels are lower and the likely impact may be worse.”

36. The Council also provided a copy of the case officer’s notes. These show he reviewed recordings from a range of times, including late night and early morning, and in doing so considered Miss T’s own comments accompanying the recordings. I am therefore satisfied the sample of recordings the officer reviewed is properly representative of the material Miss T submitted. There is no reason to believe the officer disregarded relevant evidence.
37. I do note one discrepancy in the Council’s complaint response. It says, after initially sending log sheets for Miss T to complete in October, it received no response from her until she chased up the case in December, at which point it sent her more log sheets, and explained why it was important she fill them in.
38. But the response then says the Council received Miss T’s completed log sheets in November, and allocated the case to an officer the same day, who went on to install noise monitoring equipment. Both of these things cannot be true.
39. I cannot explain this contradiction on the evidence I have, but it appears most likely to be due to a mistake by the officer who wrote the complaint response, or possibly an error in the Council’s records. Either way, it is clear the Council did install noise monitoring equipment in Miss T’s property at the end of November; and, as there is no reason to believe the discrepancy in the complaint response had any substantive impact on the Council’s investigation, I do not consider it significant enough to amount to fault, or to justify further investigation.
40. I am therefore satisfied there is no fault in the way the Council investigated Miss T and Miss H’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
41. However, in an email in January 2025, Miss T wrote to the case officer to say she had been “advised by [her] landlord to raise a Community Trigger for an ASB case review”. There is nothing in the Council’s records to show how it responded to this request.
42. I asked the Council to comment on this. It explained the officer had interpreted Miss T’s comment as a statement that she intended to apply for an ASB case review, not as a request for assistance in doing so, and that the Council’s website gives information on the case review process.
43. I acknowledge Miss T did not explicitly request advice or assistance in applying for the ASB case review process. Equally though, I do not consider it was reasonable for the case officer to simply disregard her comment, on the assumption she knew what to do. The officer should, as a minimum, have signposted Miss T to the relevant page on the Council’s website. I find fault he did not.
44. In response to my draft decision, the Council now confirmed Miss T did not meet the eligibility criteria for an ASB case review at the time, and so it would not have accepted her application anyway. I agree this means Miss T did not actually miss out on a review. This does not alter the fact the Council should have given her advice about how to apply though, and the frustration this caused remains an injustice to her. To remedy this, I consider the Council has agreed to write a formal letter of apology to Miss T.
45. The Council should also circulate guidance to staff dealing with ASB and statutory nuisances, to remind them to signpost a complainant to the case review process if they mention it, and to offer any other advice or assistance as may reasonably be required.
46. Separately, I also note the Council’s website lists the criteria for an ASB case review process as:

“Three separate anti-social behaviour incidents have been reported within the past six months (each reported within 30 days of incident occurring)
and

“The ASB case review must be submitted within a month of the last reported incident and where it is considered ‘no action; has been taken.”

47. It goes on to explain that ‘no action’ means:

“The reported problems have not been acknowledged i.e., no one has contacted the victim to advise what action would be taken [or] no action has been taken because information has not been shared between partners and this has affected potential service delivery”

48. The Government has issued statutory guidance on the application of ASB powers, including the ASB case review process. At page 12, the guidance says:

“Where a person makes an application for the ASB Case Review and has made at least the set number of qualifying complaints, the threshold for a review is met and the relevant bodies have a duty to undertake the ASB Case Review. This can be on an open or closed case.”

49. There is no requirement in the guidance for ‘no action’ to have been taken on the complaints, for a complainant to be eligible to apply for a review. The complainant merely has to have made enough complaints, and in time, to meet the threshold. The Council’s policy should therefore not include the ‘no action’ provision.
50. This is an additional point of fault. I am satisfied it did not cause Miss T any injustice, because she did not actually apply for a review anyway. However, the Council should urgently review its policy to remove this requirement, amend its website, and again ensure that relevant staff are aware of the change.

Back to top

Action

51. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to write a formal letter of apology to Miss T, for failing to act upon her request to apply for an ASB case review. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice, and the Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
52. And, within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• review its ASB case review policy to remove the requirement for ‘no action’ to have been taken on an applicant’s complaints of ASB; and
• circulate guidance to relevant staff, to advise them (a) to signpost complainants to the ASB case review process, if they make a clear statement they wish to apply for it, as well as offering any other assistance the complainant may reasonably require; and (b) that the Council has amended its ASB case review policy to remove the ‘no action’ requirement.

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

Back to top

Decision

54. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman