Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly deal with her concerns about her neighbour running an unlicensed home boarding business for dogs and the noise disturbance this has caused. She also says the Council delayed handling her complaint about the matter. We do not find fault with the way the Council handled Mrs B’s concerns about the boarding business and the noise disturbance. However, it was at fault for its delay in responding to Mrs B’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B to remedy her injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly deal with her concerns about her neighbour running an unlicensed home boarding business for dogs and the noise disturbance this has caused. She also says the Council delayed dealing with her complaint about the matter.
2. Mrs B says the matter has affected her mental health and caused distress and upset to her and her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs B. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
7. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory nuisances

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
9. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
10. 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.

11. 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.
12. 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.

The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018

13. The regulations state a person may operate a home boarding business without a licence if the income from that activity is less than £1,000 per year.

What happened

14. Mrs B contacted the Council in March 2023 and said her neighbour was running a dog boarding business. The Council contacted Mrs B and asked for the evidence she had to prove the business was taking place. Mrs B said her neighbour was looking after several dogs per week. The Council responded to Mrs B and said it would write to her neighbour to establish the extent of the activity.
15. Mrs B’s neighbour responded to the Council’s contact and said she was not running a boarding business, but she sometimes looked after her friend’s dogs. The Council was satisfied this activity did not meet the threshold for licensing.
16. Mrs B continued to contact the Council and said there was noise (barking dogs) coming from neighbour’s property. The Council’s environmental health officer (EHO) sent a letter to Mrs B at the end of March and asked her to use its noise app to record the noise.
17. Mrs B sent the noise recordings to the Council in April, May and June. The Council sent a letter to Mrs B’s neighbour and said it had received a complaint about alleged noise nuisance.
18. The Council sent a letter to Mrs B at the end of July and said it had reviewed her noise recordings and they did not show a statutory noise nuisance existed. It closed the case.
19. Mrs B contacted the Council in late August and said dogs were being delivered every day to her neighbour’s address. She provided the Council with CCTV evidence. The Council sent a letter to Mrs B’s neighbour and reminded her of the licensing requirements. It said if she was accepting money, it could be seen as a business, and that could require a licence. Mrs B’s neighbour did not reply. The Council closed the case. It noted while the CCTV pictures showed people with dogs coming to Mrs B’s neighbour’s property, it did not confirm a licensable activity was taking place, or that payment would exceed £1,000.
20. Mrs B sent the Council further evidence in October of visitors attending her neighbour’s property with dogs. The Council contacted Mrs B’s neighbour. She reiterated she was looking after her friend’s dogs, but she was not running a business.
21. Mrs B complained to the Council in November. She said it had wrongly closed her case despite her evidence. The Council acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond within 20 working days.
22. Mrs B chased the Council twice for an update on her complaint in January 2024. She also contacted this office and said the Council had failed to respond.
23. The Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint at the beginning of March. It acknowledged it failed to respond to her complaint within 20 working days. It said there was not enough evidence to show her neighbour was operating a licensable activity. It also said the EHO reviewed her recordings and decided they did not constitute a statutory nuisance that required further enforcement. It said although there was insufficient evidence available to support enforcement activity, it had asked the EHO to contact her to install a calibration noise recorder in her home.
24. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mrs B referred her complaint to stage two. She said her neighbour was still running an illegal business and this was having an impact on her and her child’s health.
25. The Council contacted Mrs B to arrange installing the noise recorder in her house. Mrs B responded and said she was unavailable because she was on holiday.
26. The Council issued its stage two response and did not uphold the complaint.
27. Mrs B has confirmed her neighbour has now moved out of the property and therefore the issues have stopped.

Back to top

Analysis

28. The Council acted appropriately when Mrs B raised concerns about her neighbour allegedly running a home boarding business for dogs. It gathered further evidence from Mrs B and her neighbour. It reviewed the documents and decided there was not enough evidence to show her neighbour was operating a licensable activity. That was a decision it was entitled to take. I do not find fault.
29. It is for the Council to decide whether a statutory noise nuisance exists. The test is whether the noise unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home. In Mrs B’s case, the Council considered the noise from the recordings she provided. It decided the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance. This was down to the professional judgement of the EHO. There is no fault in the process the Council followed to make its decision, and therefore I cannot question the outcome. The Council did agree to install a noise recorder, but Mrs B was initially unavailable. The noise stopped not long after Mrs B returned from holiday as her neighbour moved out and therefore the installation of the recorder is no longer necessary.
30. The Council was at fault for its delay in responding to Mrs B’s complaint. It took nearly three months to respond rather than 20 working days. It failed to keep Mrs B updated, which caused her frustration, and she was put to time and trouble chasing a response. The Council acknowledged its fault, but it did not apologise to Mrs B for her injustice. It should now do so.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. By 31 October 2024 the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B for the injustice caused by its delay in responding to her complaint.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs B an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman