Summary: The Council was not at fault for its investigation into Ms X’s complaints about a potential statutory noise nuisance and its decision that a statutory nuisance did not exist. On balance, the Council correctly considered the relevant guidance and evidence, so we cannot criticise its decision. The Council was also not at fault for telling Ms X about her right to take private action.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s investigation into her reports of dogs barking and noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property. Ms X said the Council wrongly dismissed her evidence, including recordings of the noise, because Council officers were not present to witness it. Ms X also complained the Council told her to continue logging the noise and consider taking private action.
2. Ms X said this affected her physical and mental health and left her feeling unprotected. Ms X would like the Council to act to stop the noise and pay her compensation for the impact on her health and wellbeing.

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. 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).
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. 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). Ms X has complained to the Council about alleged noise and anti-social behaviour from her neighbour since at least October 2023. Ms X previously complained to the Ombudsman in December 2023, but we decided not to investigate Ms X’s complaint as there was not enough evidence the Council was at fault to justify an investigation. Ms X continued complaining the Council but did not complain to the Ombudsman again until August 2025. Ms X knew about her right to complain to the Ombudsman as she had previously done so. I do not see a good reason why she did not complain earlier.
7. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in August 2025. I have investigated events between August 2024 and March 2026.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Statutory nuisances

10. 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.
11. 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.

12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.

Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

15. 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. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.

The Council’s statutory nuisance investigation process

16. The Council investigates noise complaints during office hours and also has an out of hours service. The Council’s website said it asks complainants to complete noise log sheets and contact the service when the noise is happening so it can visit to witness the noise and assess if a statutory nuisance exists.
17. The Council said it considers all available evidence, but where possible, it requires officers to witness the alleged noise to decide if it amounts to a statutory nuisance.

What happened

18. In response to Ms X’s reports of noise, including dog barking, from her neighbour’s property, the Council visited the area around Ms X’s property to investigate. The Council carried out visits in reaction to Ms X’s complaints and spontaneous visits to the area to monitor for noise from her neighbour’s property. The Council visited during the day and out-of-hours, based on the times Ms X had recorded in her noise logs.
19. The Council’s records showed it regularly visited the area around Ms X’s property between August 2024 and April 2025, but it did not witness a statutory nuisance or anti-social behaviour issues during these visits. The records also show several occasions where Ms X complained about noise, but when the Council called her to discuss visiting, she explained the noise had stopped.
20. Ms X complained to the Council again about dog barking noise from her neighbour’s property on 9 June 2025. The Council provided a stage one complaint response and outlined the noise patrol visits it had recently undertaken and told Ms X to report any criminal activity to the police. The Council’s records showed it visited the area around Ms X’s property regularly during June 2025, but it did not witness dog barking at a level or duration that showed a statutory nuisance existed. Around this time, the Council also reminded Ms X of her right to take private action. The Council’s records showed it had also previously told her about her right in June 2024 and March 2025.
21. In mid-July 2025, Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two. Ms X said the noise issue was on-going and she was not happy with the Council’s stage one complaint response. The Council responded and repeated the steps it had taken to investigate Ms X’s complaints and said it would continue to visit the area to monitor the noise.
22. The Council’s records showed it regularly visited the area around Ms X’s property between August 2025 and October 2025, but it did not witness a statutory nuisance. The Council’s records showed it also continued visiting the area to monitor for noise between November 2025 and March 2026, but it did not witness a statutory nuisance.
23. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had reviewed the noise logs and noise recordings provided by Ms X, but it considered evidence witnessed by its officers to be the strongest evidence when assessing if a statutory nuisance exists. The Council said its investigations had not resulted in evidence of a statutory nuisance and so it had not taken formal enforcement action.
24. The Council told the Ombudsman it had also investigated Ms X’s broader concerns about the neighbour’s alleged anti-social behaviour and control of their dogs, but this also did not result in evidence of anti-social behaviour. The Council said where appropriate, it referred Ms X’s complaints on to other organisations to investigate, such as the police.

My findings

25. The law says Councils must take reasonable steps to investigate complaints about potential statutory nuisances. The Council’s records showed it visited the area to investigate Ms X’s complaints and monitor for a potential statutory nuisance on a regular basis between August 2024 and March 2026. The Council considered the evidence provided by Ms X and its officers. The Council decided the evidence did not show a statutory nuisance existed, so it did not take formal enforcement action.
26. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
27. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from its noise patrol visits and information provided by Ms X. The organisation followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it. On balance, the Council was not at fault.
28. The law says it is good practice for Councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action. The Council told Ms X about her right to take private action. The Council was not at fault as it acted in line with the law. Ms X can take private action against the alleged nuisance if she wishes to do so.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find no fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman