Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on noise nuisance from nearby allotments. We found the Council took suitable steps to investigate the noise and acted against the allotment tenants responsible. The Council accepted fault for not acting promptly on further evidence Mr X gave, but we found this did not affect the outcome or cause significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about noise nuisance from cockerels at nearby allotments. He said cockerels are not permitted at allotments, but the Council failed to take action despite several complaints.
2. The noise caused Mr X sleep loss and made his anxiety worse.

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. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr X 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;
• 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.

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 Council’s terms for allotment use

13. The Council’s allotment policy has a section on animals and livestock. It confirms cockerels are strictly forbidden.
14. The Council’s website displays rules for its allotments. Its rules state cockerels are not permitted, and anyone found keeping them on their allotment may have their tenancy terminated.

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. Mr X made a report to the Council about noise nuisance from cockerels at nearby allotments on 28 February 2024.
17. The Council responded to Mr X on 13 March. It said it carried out a site inspection but found no evidence of cockerels. However, there are over 100 plots at the site. It said it reminded allotment tenants that cockerels are not permitted, and they may have their tenancy terminated if they are found keeping them. It said it would monitor the site and asked Mr X if he had more information on the location of the cockerels.
18. Mr X said this was unacceptable and was the Council’s default response each year. He doubted the Council inspected the site and suggested the cockerels are easy to locate.
19. The Council asked Mr X if he would like to escalate the matter as a complaint. Mr X confirmed he would.
20. Mr X emailed the Council on 14 March. He said several plots are keeping cockerels which he could direct the Council to. He said they make noise from 4am to 10pm. He attached images of the areas of the allotments where the noise came from.
21. Mr X chased the Council 20 March. He said, as he received no reply to his last email, he presumed the Council was taking no further action.
22. The Council sent its stage one complaint response 14 April. It recognised Mr X provided further information which it did not make the investigating officer aware of. It apologised for this. However, it said it continued to monitor the situation by making regular visits at various times of day. It wrote to all allotment holders, and spoke to some. It also spoke to the site secretary. It identified at least one plot keeping a cockerel and acted to secure its removal.
23. Mr X asked to take his complaint to stage two, as the noise continued and was starting at 4am every day.
24. The Council’s stage two complaint response states it spoke to Mr X on 27 June, and he said cockerel noise was no longer disturbing him. There were no longer any cockerels on the allotments. The Council gave Mr X details of its customer relations officer so he could report any future problems. It found its allotment team acted in response to Mr X’s concerns and did not uphold his complaint.

My investigation

25. The Council told us it found two tenants keeping cockerels on the allotments near Mr X’s home. It wrote to both tenants asking them to remove the birds within seven days. One tenant complied. The second took another two weeks to do so, and the Council subsequently terminated their allotment tenancy.

Analysis

26. The Council upheld Mr X’s stage one complaint because it did not review his further evidence in a timely manner.
27. Mr X reported noise from cockerels at the allotments at the end of February 2024. I found, despite the Council not acting on Mr X’s further evidence promptly, its investigations were continuing in the background. By the time of the Council’s stage one complaint response in mid-April, it had identified one allotment tenant keeping cockerels and told them to remove the birds.
28. Internal Council email exchanges, as part of its stage two complaint investigation, confirm officers visited the plots Mr X identified, but did not find any cockerels. Officers maintained a fortnightly schedule of inspecting the site, visiting as early as 7:30am and as late as 6pm. Officers found cockerels during two of their visits. The first tenant removed their cockerels. The Council wrote to the second tenant giving them until 21 June to remove their cockerels. It subsequently terminated this tenant’s allotment agreement.
29. I did not find the Council at fault for failing to act. I found the Council continued to monitor the allotments throughout, making several site visits, and writing to all allotment tenants. It also wrote to the tenants responsible for keeping cockerels, demanding they remove them.
30. I found the Council took suitable action and brought about an improvement by securing the removal of the cockerels causing the noise nuisance.
31. Based on the above, I do not consider the fault which the Council accepted impacted its investigation or prolonged the noise nuisance. I therefore found it did not cause Mr X significant injustice. I appreciate the noise continued until around 27 June, but this was not the fault of the Council, and was not down to any lack of action or investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I completed my investigation. I found the Council took suitable steps to investigate the noise and acted against the allotment tenants responsible. The Council accepted fault for not acting promptly on further evidence Mr X gave, but I found this did not affect the outcome or cause significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman