Summary: Mr D complained the Council delayed investigating an alleged noise and light nuisance. Based on current evidence I have found the Council delayed investigating the case which meant Mr D had to wait longer than is reasonable for his case to progress. The Council will explain to the Ombudsman the actions taken to prevent a similar fault occurring.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council has delayed investigating and resolving an alleged noise and light nuisance caused by activities at a neighbouring site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

What I have and have not investigated

3. My investigation covers what happened from Mr D’s report to Environmental Health about the issue in September 2023 through to October 2024 when the complaint was submitted to us. Events after October 2024 would need be formally complained about to the Council in the first instance.
4. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong, for example we are not re-assessing if there is evidence of a statutory nuisance. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 27 September 2023 Mr D contacted the Environmental Health Team at the Council reporting a nuisance caused by music and lights at a neighbouring leisure facility site. On the same day a Technical Support Officer (TS Officer) at the Council told Mr D to expect a reply from the Noise Team within 10 days. They also contacted the leisure facility for information. The Leisure facility responded on 28 September; they would ask the provider to keep any music at a lower level. The TS Officer notified Mr D.
8. On 15 January 2024 Mr D contacted the Council. He said the noise and light issue was ongoing. The Council acknowledged and said the case would be referred to the Noise Team. Mr D asked the Council for an update on 23 January and 5 February. The Council said the Noise Team was very busy, but it had chased matters up for him.
9. On 22 March an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) wrote to the leisure facility about Mr D’s complaint. They also wrote to Mr D and apologised for the lack of response to his contact, this was due to staff shortages and high workloads. They explained the leisure facility had been contacted and hoped this would lead to an improvement. If the problem persisted Mr D should complete a noise diary sheet and return it to the Council. An Officer would then assess to decide what should happen next. If the noise diary was not submitted the Council might not be able to investigate further.
10. On 5 June the Council received a completed noise diary from Mr D, he had sent it to the Corporate Complaints Team who forwarded it to the Noise Team. The next day the EHO noted the case had been passed to an Area Officer to check if the problem was ongoing. The EHO also spoke to Mr D and explained he should send any information direct to the Noise Team, not to the Complaints Team. She said a letter would be sent to the leisure facility. At the end of June Mr D told the Complaints Team the noise was still happening.
11. On 6 August the EHO noted she had seen a noise diary received in June; she wrote “not sure how I missed this”. She then contacted the facility who gave assurances it would take steps to prevent a nuisance. The EHO opened a full investigation and visited the area in the evening. The activities Mr D complained about were not taking place. On 15 August the EHO emailed Mr D and explained the delays in the case were due to a restructuring and staff shortages. She had now assessed all the information provided and decided it needed further investigation. She had visited the area, but the activities had not been taking place. She had copied the information to a new Case Officer and had contacted the facility. The Council needed additional noise diary sheets from Mr D for the next two weeks. On 19 August the Council wrote to Mr D in response to a complaint. It accepted there had been delays and upheld his complaint.
12. On 3 October the Council received noise diary sheets from Mr D, he asked why the Council could not tell the facility to move the activities. On 9 October the Case Officer visited the site. The activities were happening, he noted there was audible music, but it was not excessive. During October Mr D continued to contact the Council stating the problem was ongoing. On 14 October the Case Officer and EHO discussed the case. It was agreed that a digital recorder could be used to help gather evidence. Three days later the EHO called Mr D and, again, apologised for the delays. She asked if the Council could install a digital recorder at Mr D’s home for evidence of how the issue was affecting him. Mr D refused the offer. The EHO explained the Council could not tell the leisure facility to stop or relocate the activities without evidence of a statutory nuisance. The Council then sent Mr D a leaflet about digital recorders and offered to install it the next day.
13. On 22 October the EHO advised the Case Officer to arrange the digital recorder installation or carry out a site visit to the area to further assess the light and noise levels. On 23 October Mr D confirmed he did not want the digital recorder. On 28 October the EHO and Case Officer carried out separate visits to the site when the activities were taking place. They both noted the lighting was not excessive. In addition, the noise was not a statutory nuisance. Both Officers concluded there was no statutory noise or light nuisance.

What should have happened

14. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential statutory nuisances. Typical things which may be a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street, artificial light from a facility. 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. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence.
15. A resident should report a noise or light nuisance to the Environmental Health Noise Team. The Council can contact the alleged perpetrator and request they take steps to prevent a nuisance occurring. If the perpetrator agrees to take action, the Council can notify the resident. If no further reports are received from the resident the Council will assume the problem is resolved and not take further action. Where a resident comes back to the Council stating the nuisance is continuing the Council will send the resident a letter about its role along with noise diary sheets to complete and return. Once the Council has completed noise diary sheets an EHO will assess whether further investigation is needed. The Council may carry out site visits to witness the alleged nuisance. They can also offer the installation of a digital recorder in the resident’s property. This is used to gather evidence of noise levels and patterns and helps corroborate noise diary sheets.
16. An EHO will review the digital recordings alongside any other evidence, such as site visits, to assess if there is evidence of a statutory noise nuisance, taking account of factors including the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The Officer will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists. If the Council does not have evidence of a statutory noise or light nuisance it cannot take enforcement action and will close its investigation and notify the complainant. The Council cannot tell a facility to cease operating or to relocate activities without evidence of a statutory nuisance.

Was there fault by the Council

17. There is evidence of fault by the Council, and it accepts there have been periods of delay in progressing Mr D’s case.
18. There is no fault in the initial handling of the case, the Council informally advised the leisure facility about the complaint and received assurances any disturbances would be minimised. It had no duty to take any further action until it was notified by Mr D that the issue was still happening.
19. When Mr D told the Council in January 2024 the nuisance was ongoing the Council should have sent him information and noise diary sheets that same month. Instead, the Council failed to progress the case for two months. The Council then had to wait for Mr D’s noise diary sheets before it could determine what investigation to carry out. It received those sheets at the start of June but again failed to take action for two months.
20. From August to October the Council acted within a reasonable timeframe. Officers carried out a site visit in August and did not witness a statutory nuisance. The Council received additional diary sheets from Mr D at the start of October and further site visits were conducted that month along with the offer to install a digital recorder.
21. I appreciate Mr D disagrees with the Council’s decision about whether there is a statutory nuisance. As I explain above, I am not assessing whether a statutory nuisance took place, that is for the Council to determine. The evidence shows me the Council has followed the correct process for investigating an alleged nuisance albeit with periods of delay. It has also correctly advised Mr D that it cannot force a facility to relocate its activities unless it has found evidence of a statutory nuisance.

Did the fault cause an injustice

22. The four months of delays by the Council meant Mr D had to wait longer than is reasonable for his case to progress.

Back to top

Action

23. The Council should apologise to Mr D. It should also explain to the Ombudsman what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this fault in future cases. Those actions should be completed within four weeks of this investigation ending.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman