Summary: Ms G complained about the way the Council’s Environmental Health Service dealt with her complaint about a noise nuisance from a neighbour’s dog. We find the Council’s investigation was adequate, but find some fault around its communications with Ms G. This will have caused Ms G some frustration. The Council has made an offer of a symbolic payment as a remedy, which is suitable.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Ms G) complains about the way the Council’s Environmental Health Service has dealt with her complaint about a noise nuisance from a neighbour’s dog. She complains the Council:

• has provided an unprofessional service;
• did not act or resolve her complaint within its time limits;
• did not assess the impact the noise had on her family’s overall wellbeing;
• dismissed their videos and noise logs they asked it to consider;
• did not complete any assessment of the risks of further harassment if it took action against the neighbour;
• took no action and was not clear on the options available to deal with the antisocial behaviour and harassment they experienced;
• was not clear on its equipment usage or assessment process;
• ignored their emails;
• provided poor customer service through its manager. He did not answer any of their concerns, provide information, or resolve their complaint. Instead, he frequently ignored emails and did not adhere to his own deadlines.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. But 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Statutory Noise Nuisance

7. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (‘the Act’), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Noise can amount to a statutory nuisance.
8. 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.

9. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on Environmental Health Officers come to an independent judgement about whether a nuisance meets the legal threshold to amount to a statutory nuisance under the Act. They will take account of matters such as the level of noise, its length, timing, location and so on. Officers may ask a complainant to complete diary sheets, install noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits.
10. Councils have powers of enforcement under the Act, which can involve the Magistrates Court. So a council must gather evidence that will persuade a court the action is proportionate and necessary. That means it cannot act on the complainant’s word alone.

The Council’s workflow for investigating noise complaints

11. The Council’s workflow for investigating noise complaints says, if the Council receives a complaint about noise which does not appear complex, and in which there appears no risk of significant harm and no repeat offences, it will send a letter to the alleged offender asking for the behaviour to stop. It will also send a letter to the complainant, asking them to keep a diary.
12. After 14 days, the Council would assess the noise evidence. If there was not enough evidence to take formal action, it would consider options, such as:
• Closing the case.
• Extending the evidence-gathering period.
• Writing another letter to the alleged offender.
• Discussing the case with a manager.
13. If there was sufficient evidence to proceed after the 14-day period, the Council would serve a ‘community protection warning’ on the alleged offender. It would also update the complainant and start further evidence-gathering (such as site visits or noise recording).
14. A supervisor would review the case within three weeks. They would decide whether there was enough evidence to serve the offender with a ‘community protection notice’. If not, the Council would either continue gathering evidence or close the case.

Anti-social behaviour

15. 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.
16. Councils and the police can issue community protection notices to prevent anti-social behaviour which is unreasonable and having a negative effect on the community's quality of life. A community protection notice requires the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again. Not complying is an offence and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice.

What happened

17. The information below is a summary of relevant events, and does not include every everything that happened during this period.

Background

18. Ms G has been reporting problems with a neighbour’s barking dog since late 2022. The Council has issued community protection warning letters (see paragraph 11 and 12) to the neighbour about the barking dog. Ms G complained to the Ombudsman about earlier events. We found that much of what the Council did in response to Ms G’s noise complaint was done without fault. But we found some fault with how the Council had handled the case. We asked the Council to contact Ms G.

The current complaint

19. In January 2024 the Council installed noise recording equipment into Ms G’s home. But this equipment was faulty so did not make any recordings.
20. In February, the Council again installed noise recording equipment into Ms G’s home for a week. Ms G says it was a quiet week.
21. On reviewing the recordings, the Council’s officer advised Ms G they did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant any formal action. The officer advised Ms G she could send a warning letter, or install recording equipment again. Ms G decided to have another attempt at recording the noise, as she was worried about her neighbour’s reaction if the Council sent another letter.
22. Ms G wrote to the Council complaining it was not taking other options. She said she thought the noise could be classed as ASB.
23. The Council’s complaint response acknowledged it had taken longer than it should have to install recording equipment, due to the faulty first installation. It partially upheld the complaint because of some issues with communications from its officers.
24. In early summer the Council again installed noise recording equipment at Ms G’s home. Its officer reviewed the recordings and Ms G’s diary. The officer noted that Ms G said she had recordings on her telephone. The officer advised the Council could consider any evidence. But the recordings were not something the Council could use in court action, as the court would need independently verified evidence (see paragraph 10). The officer offered to write again to Ms G’s neighbour.
25. The officer advised Ms G to report any harassment issues to the police. He advised that, while harassment is considered antisocial behaviour, it was more an area for the police to consider.
26. Shortly afterwards, a manger in the Council’s Environmental Health team emailed Ms G to advise he would look into her complaint. He would ask one of his officers to assess the noise recordings and another to visit Ms G’s neighbours.
27. There was a delay of around three weeks before the manager asked an officer to consider the noise recordings. After this, the manager tried to arrange a time to visit Ms G, but was not able to due to his annual leave.
28. In November 2024 Ms G chased a response as she had not heard from the manager. He responded but advised he wanted to telephone her to understand her concerns.
29. Around this time, Ms G asked for some information from the Council about its processes. The Council delayed providing this information. It says this was due to problems with its information technology systems.
30. In January 2025 Ms G complained again, about the lack of response following the Council’s escalation of their complaint to its manager.
31. Later in the month the Council again installed recording equipment into Ms G’s home. The Council analysed the findings and decided the noise did not meet the thresholds to constitute a statutory nuisance, so it could not take formal action under the Act. It had also considered whether it could act under its anti-social behaviour powers; for example by serving a community protection notice. But it did not consider it had enough evidence that the neighbour’s conduct was unreasonable. It gave detailed reasoning for its decision. It also advised it would not investigate further complaints unless there were a significant change of circumstances.
32. Ms G complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries the Council advised it accepted a “…lack of appropriate communication” from its manager. It offered Ms G £200 as an apology for the inconvenience and frustration this caused her.

Analysis

33. I can well understand Ms G’s concerns about the disruption from the neighbour’s barking dog. But this is not itself evidence of a statutory nuisance the Council could do something about.
34. There is no set level at which noise becomes a statutory nuisance and is dependent of factors like its timing, frequency, and the nature of the area and what could reasonably be expected there. The decision on whether noise amounts a nuisance is one of professional judgement for officers, based on objective evidence. A council officer cannot take action simply because a complainant says they are suffering from a nuisance.
35. The Ombudsman cannot find fault where a council has taken appropriate steps to investigate noise nuisance and decide whether it is a statutory nuisance. The Council’s investigation into Ms G’s noise complaint was done without fault. It visited her and installed noise equipment several times. It kept its file open and considered the recordings and diary logs from Ms G. These were reasonable steps and in line with the Council’s procedures.
36. Nor can I fault the Council’s assessment about whether the behaviour of the neighbours amounted to ASB. It gave Mrs G a detailed explanation about this. In the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council’s conclusions.
37. The Council did however delay responding after its manager decided to carry out a review. There was also some fault in some communications with officers, and in responding to Ms G’s questions about the process. This will have caused Ms G some frustration. But the Council’s offer of a symbolic payment as a remedy for this in line with the approach set out in our Guidance on Remedies. So I do not need to make a further recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I find fault causing injustice for the officer’s delay in responding to Ms G’s contact. But the Council has suggested a remedy which is sufficient to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman