Tewkesbury Borough Council (24 013 686)

Category : Environment and regulation > Noise

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 27 Aug 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss B complained the Council had failed to resolve a long-standing noise nuisance caused to her by a neighbouring landowner who keeps many dogs. We upheld the complaint, finding there was some unnecessary delay and poor communication in the Council’s response to Miss B’s reports. We found these faults caused injustice to Miss B in adding to the length of its investigation and avoidable distress. The Council accepted these findings. At the end of the statement, we set out actions agreed by the Council to remedy Miss B’s injustice. These include that it will apologise, make a symbolic payment to Miss B and agree a plan to include regular communication with her moving forward.

The complaint

  1. Miss B complained on her own behalf and that of her partner, Mr C. She complained the Council had failed to resolve a long-standing noise nuisance caused to them by a neighbouring landowner, licensed to keep up to 40 dogs. Miss B said for over three years this nuisance had caused frequent disturbance to their sleep and enjoyment of their home. She said the Council had taken too long to investigate and take enforcement action against the owner of the dogs.
  2. Miss B considered the Council had therefore contributed to the distress experienced by the couple. She said poor customer service, such as delays in communication, had also caused frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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. 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

  1. I considered evidence provided by Miss B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
  2. I gave Miss B and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I considered any comments they made, or further evidence they provided, before finalising the content of this decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Key legal and administrative considerations

  1. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’ (see the Environmental Protection Act 1990).
  2. A statutory nuisance can include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
  3. For a council to consider unwanted noise 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.
  1. There is no fixed point at which a noise becomes a statutory nuisance. For example, because of its volume measured in decibels. It will depend on various matters including the timing, duration, frequency and intensity of the noise. Qualified environmental health officers must use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
  2. To do this, officers will rely on evidence. Sources of evidence can include first-hand evidence from those who experience unwanted noise in the form of diary sheets or home-made recordings. But the Council will ideally want corroboration and objective measurement of volume. So, officers will conduct site visits to listen for noise and use calibrated noise monitoring equipment.
  3. If a council decides there is a statutory nuisance, it must serve an abatement notice. This requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. A person who receives an abatement notice has a right to appeal it in the magistrates’ court.
  4. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence. So, if someone fails to comply with an abatement notice the Council can prosecute. A successful prosecution can lead to a fine.

Council enforcement policy

  1. The Council has an enforcement policy covering its regulatory services, including its environmental health team which investigates reports of potential statutory nuisances. The policy says the Council will always aim to “achieve compliance through informal action” and being “supportive” to businesses and individuals. It will only use formal enforcement routes, where there is “a serious risk of injury to health or personal injury, or a blatant disregard for the law, deliberate intent or negligence, or a history of non-compliance with informal action”.
  2. Section 6 of the policy sets out the enforcement steps the Council has available including serving abatement notices. And that subsequently it can consider prosecution. The policy does not explain any steps beyond a prosecution.

The key facts

  1. Miss B and Mr C have lived in their home since 2021. In July 2022 they contacted the Council to report disturbance from barking dogs, day and night, kept at a property nearby. ‘Mr X’ owns that property and has a licence issued by a national organisation to keep up to 40 dogs in kennels.
  2. In the initial stages of the investigation the Council asked Miss B to complete diary sheets. She provided these, with her own noise recordings.
  3. Next, the Council fitted noise recording equipment at Miss B’s home. The equipment had a fault and this corrupted some recordings. But even so, the Council recorded in its notes there was “some element of noise nuisance from dog barking”.
  4. And, by the end of September 2022, the Council considered there might be enough evidence to show Miss B experienced a statutory noise nuisance. It therefore sent a letter to Mr X, giving him seven days to reduce the noise nuisance. It said otherwise it might serve an abatement notice.
  5. The Council wanted to fit noise recording equipment a second time at Miss B’s home. It offered this in October 2022. Miss B declined after the bad experience with the equipment previously. But when the Council offered it again a month later, Miss B accepted. It fitted the equipment for a week in November 2022.
  6. By March 2023 the Council had reviewed the noise recordings taken in November. It considered these showed a statutory nuisance. In particular it noted the recordings showed regular and sustained episodes of barking overnight.
  7. In between officers had also visited Miss B’s property several times. This was both to deliver and collect the noise equipment, and in visits in December 2022 and February 2023. While on occasion, officers heard dogs barking they did not consider this a statutory nuisance. The Council told me that it was important officers visited, as well as it using noise recording equipment. This was because it had to be sure of the source of the noise.
  8. The Council served an abatement notice on Mr X in March 2023. It gave him four months to comply with it. It said it did this as it foresaw Mr X might need to undertake building work to comply with the notice (to better noise insulate the kennels). During the four-month compliance period, it received some contact from Mr X saying he was taking some measures to try and reduce noise from the dogs.
  9. Meanwhile, Miss B regularly contacted the Council to advise the noise continued and sent in her own recordings. The Council recognised the noise remained “problematic” but said it could do nothing until the period for compliance with the abatement notice expired.
  10. So, at the end of July 2023, when Miss B reported no change in the noise disturbance she experienced, the Council once more fitted noise recording equipment at her home. The Council collected the equipment in early August and listened to the recordings around a month later. It considered these showed a continuing statutory nuisance and gave this advice to Miss B.
  11. The Council served a notice on Mr X advising they were in breach of the abatement notice. It also passed the case file to its legal officers for consideration of prosecution. It took between September and early December for the Council to prepare the file for prosecution. It took statements from Miss B and Mr C and said there was some delay in them providing these. It also gave Miss B access to a ‘noise app’ so Miss B could continue to record disturbance from her phone. Miss B provided around 90 recordings in a four-week period.
  12. The Council contacted the Court in December 2023 and it listed the case for a hearing at the end of April 2024.
  13. At the hearing Mr X pleaded guilty to causing a statutory nuisance. He received a fine and order to pay costs. At the hearing Mr X explained he had taken some measures he hoped would reduce noise. He said he had reduced the number of dogs at the property and was willing to take further measures to reduce the nuisance.
  14. So, around a month after the hearing the Council met with Mr X and stayed in contact with him over the following months, both in writing and undertaking site visits. In those meetings Mr X explained building works he planned, and later undertook, to better soundproof the kennels. That work completed in November 2024.
  15. Meanwhile, Miss B remained in regular contact with the Council. From mid-May onward she continued to alert the Council to incidents where she experienced disturbance from barking. In June 2024 the Council explained that it planned giving Mr X time to make changes, as it would have to show to the Court it acted reasonably, should it prosecute again. In response to an enquiry in early August 2024, the Council said it could not be “prescriptive” about how long it would give Mr X to comply.
  16. By now, Miss B had become frustrated with the pace of the Council’s response and made a complaint about the Council’s handling of this matter. She said despite the Court proceedings, the noise nuisance she had reported for two years continued.
  17. In its reply the Council recognised some “unacceptable and unnecessary delay” in establishing the noise was a statutory nuisance and taking enforcement action. But it said it had now taken “the ultimate sanction that exists” and it would not be in the public interest for it to prosecute again so soon. It had “reasonable assurance” Mr X was undertaking mitigation works and it would continue to check those.
  18. Miss B escalated her complaint in September 2024, because the nuisance continued and it had now been five months since the prosecution. The Council had appointed a new case officer several weeks previously but she had yet to have contact from him. She also queried if the mitigation works would stop the nuisance, as the dogs barked when outside as well as in the kennels.
  19. In its final reply the Council promised it would keep Miss B updated and it offered her a meeting with senior officers. It repeated that it had already taken the “ultimate sanction” against Mr X. It had no powers to seize the dogs.
  20. After Miss B received her final reply, the Council, as noted above, received advice from Mr X he had completed noise insulation works on the kennels. Miss B reported in December 2024 that she continued to experience disturbance from the dogs barking.
  21. In January 2025 the Council undertook a series of visits outside Miss B’s home during the morning hours to try and witness the noise. It took this approach as Miss B suggested an unwillingness to have noise recording equipment fitted in her home again. It used different officers, all of whom recorded hearing some barking but usually not at levels they considered likely to be a statutory nuisance if inside the home. However, one officer considered the barking could be at a volume and intensity that was still a statutory nuisance.
  22. So, in February 2025 and March 2025 the Council explained to Miss B it did not consider it had enough information to take further enforcement. It wanted to undertake a further visit inside the home, as an alternative to fitting noise recording equipment. Or else it would prefer to fit that equipment again. It told us it could not use the ‘noise app’ Miss B found helpful before, as it only used this as a trial in late 2023. Because of limited take up it decided not to continue using that product.
  23. I decided not to consider events after March 2025, which is when my investigation began. But I noted both the Council and Miss B subsequently told me the Council intended to bring a further prosecution, with the Council having decided the statutory nuisance continued.

My findings

  1. I note at the outset the clear evidence that Miss B and Mr C have experienced a significant impact on their ability to enjoy their home, because of noise from barking dogs. The Council’s actions reflect this is so, as it has both served an abatement notice and prosecuted the nearby landowner. Miss B contacted us because understandably she had become frustrated that more than two and a half years after she first made the Council aware of hearing unwanted noise from the dogs, she continued to experience it. The key matter I had to consider during this investigation therefore, was if the Council had been at fault in responding to those reports. Was there more it should have done, or could it have acted more quickly, to help try and stop the nuisance?
  2. I noted first it took the Council eight months to serve an abatement notice on Mr X following Miss B’s first report of disturbance caused by the dogs kept on his land. Yet the Council had the evidence from the noise recording equipment, which it used to justify service of the abatement notice, after just four months, in mid-November 2022. I noted that Miss B could have accepted that equipment a month sooner. I also allowed that officers would reasonably need some time to listen to the recordings, up to four weeks. Further, I recognised the Council also needed to try and witness the noise first-hand to clarify its source. This is why they continued to visit Miss B’s home between November 2022 and February 2023.
  3. But against that I also had to take account that the Council might have had evidence of a statutory nuisance sooner but for the faulty noise recording equipment given to Miss B in the summer. And that it could have prioritised listening to the noise recordings sooner. These provided (and always would provide) the most comprehensive picture of how often, and for how long, Miss B experienced disturbance. Especially, during the night.
  4. So, on balance, I considered the Council could have realistically served the abatement notice on Mr X by the end November 2022 at the latest. This meant there was four months of delay in getting to the point where it served that notice. That was a fault.
  5. The injustice this caused Miss B was that she therefore experienced the impact of the noise, without the Council acting to try and prevent it, for longer than should have been the case.
  6. After the Council served the abatement notice on Mr X, I could make no criticism of the time it gave him to comply. I recognised from Miss B’s perspective every week that passed where she experienced disturbance to her sleep and work patterns, added to her distress. But the Council had to be mindful that when it prosecutes someone, it must satisfy the court that it has given the perpetrator a fair chance to stop the nuisance. In this case, the Council judged there could be no quick solution to stop the dogs barking. Mr X might need to undertake building works or arrange to manage the dogs differently during the day or reduce their number. All this would inevitably take time and so I found no fault in how it exercised its judgement that he would need four months to comply.
  7. There was also no fault in the speed in which the Council acted once the abatement notice expired. It recognised Miss B’s statements the noise remained a problem. Within a month of the expiry of the notice, it fitted noise recording equipment so it could gather evidence to see if a statutory nuisance continued. This time it listened to the recordings in a reasonable timescale, and by early September decided to prosecute.
  8. But next, there was then some delay in the case going to the Council’s legal advisers. I accepted the Council needed to take extra steps before it could ask for a court date. It needed witness statements from Miss B and Mr C and it suggested there was some delay in them providing these. But once it had those statements, they did not put the Council to any further enquiry.
  9. I found delay also arose in part because the Council wanted to consider the recordings Miss B made using the ‘noise app’. I was sure those recordings were helpful to the prosecution and buttressed the case that a statutory nuisance existed. But they were not critical for the case to proceed as Council officers had already decided in September 2023 they had enough evidence to begin prosecution. So, I considered it could have analysed those recordings later and considered adding the evidence they contained without delaying the request for a court hearing.
  10. Overall, I considered the Council could have realistically passed the case to its legal officers around a month earlier. That delay was therefore also a fault. It caused Miss B injustice, as it avoidably prolonged her distress.
  11. Next, I could make no criticism of the delay between December 2023 and April 2024, as for that time the matter was in the hands of the Court. The Council would have to succeed in its prosecution first, if it was to take further action against Mr X.
  12. After the successful prosecution, the Council considered it had to give Mr X another opportunity to try and mitigate the noise. Again, I could understand why allowing more time added to Miss B’s distress. But having successfully prosecuted, the Council only had the option of prosecuting again. The law does not give it the power to seize dogs, in the way that it can seize musical equipment (for example) if that causes a statutory nuisance. It also has no licensing authority over the dogs Mr X keeps. Nor can it carry out works on Mr X’s property itself. The Council therefore had to hope the threat of further prosecution would encourage Mr X to stop the statutory nuisance. It had good reason to believe this was his intent. And in these circumstances, its judgement was the Courts would look unfavourably if it was to embark immediately on a further prosecution.
  13. I had no grounds to criticise that judgement, as it was one the Council could reasonably reach given the circumstances described. So, I found no fault in the general ‘direction of travel’ it adopted after the successful prosecution. I considered the Council could wait until November 2024 to consider if Miss B continued to experience a statutory nuisance.
  14. But I found the Council was at fault, for how it communicated with Miss B after the prosecution in April 2024.
  15. First, it did not set a clear timescale after which it would review the case and decide if it should bring a second prosecution. I considered this could realistically have been anywhere between three and six months. But the Council should have been clear in its communications with both Miss B and Mr X of its approach following the successful prosecution.
  16. Second, I had a concern about the Council’s approach towards the impact of noise nuisance on Miss B during the day. It was logical that a proposal to better noise insulate the kennels on Mr X’s property, would help reduce noise transferring to Miss B’s property at night with the dogs shut inside. So, for the Council to allow Mr X time to complete building work on the kennels was not a judgement I could find fault with.
  17. But as Miss B pointed out to the Council, and was clear from her many reports since 2022, she and Mr C also experienced disturbance during the daytime. I did not find the Council was clear about whether it considered the statutory nuisance arose solely at nighttime, or during the daylight hours also. Especially the early morning hours when Miss B tended to report it at its worst. As Miss B said, it was hard to see how better insulated kennels would reduce that noise transferring to her property.
  18. I found insufficient evidence the Council had turned its mind to this question. It did tell me that its officers had discussed the issue with Mr X and encouraged him to take expert advice. I found there was some evidence for this. But it had still not set out to Miss B its view on the extent to which a statutory nuisance arose during the daytime hours. And I still questioned if there was sufficient engagement with Mr X on this particular matter.
  19. I considered these poor communications justified another finding of fault. They did not add to the time taken to progress the further investigation of statutory nuisance. But they caused a further injustice to Miss B as distress, which arose from her frustration with the Council’s communications.
  20. I noted here Miss B also raised with me a wider concern about the Council’s communications. She said she had to often initiate contacts with the Council. And there was a time in September 2024 when she received no reply to an email she sent in response to a meeting invitation, because of a cyber security incident at the Council.
  21. I did not consider these matters justified another finding of fault or caused any injustice separable to that previously identified. But they served to emphasise my concern the Council did not appear to have had a clear plan of action in place for how it would proceed after the successful prosecution. If it had drawn up such a plan, then part of that would have included how it would update Miss B regularly.
  22. Turning finally to events between November 2024 and March 2025, I found no fault in the Council’s efforts to investigate if the statutory nuisance continued.
  23. I recognised Miss B was unhappy the Council found no evidence of statutory nuisance in that time. I accepted she remained disturbed by the dogs barking. But for the Council to begin a second prosecution it needed evidence to satisfy a court. So, its officers needed to witness the noise, or else it needed to capture it on noise recording equipment.
  24. I noted Miss B’s reluctance to have noise recording equipment a fourth time. I could see the first attempts to record the noise went badly, which must have been a source of frustration. I also accepted it was intrusive and Miss B had personal reasons for not wanting that intrusion. But I considered the later recordings brought clear benefits, as they provided the material for the Council to serve the abatement notice and justified its prosecution. In declining the equipment after November 2024, Miss B therefore made it harder for the Council to establish a continuing statutory nuisance. And I noted the historic pattern in this case was that officers had struggled to observe statutory nuisance from outside the home.
  25. I took no view on the Council’s actions from April 2025 onward, as I had to apply a cut-off date to my investigation. But I noted Miss B would have the right to make a further complaint to the Council if she considered there had been further drift and delay from that point. However, I made what I hoped would be useful proposals for managing ongoing communications between the Council and Miss B, to try and prevent a repeat of the faults identified. I was pleased the Council accepted these and other recommendations I put forward, detailed in the ‘agreed action’ section below.

Back to top

Agreed Action

  1. In paragraphs 44, 49 and 58 I identified where fault by the Council caused injustice to Miss B. The Council has agreed that to remedy that injustice it will, within 20 working days of this decision:
      1. apologise to Miss B, accepting the findings of this investigation, and taking account of paragraph 66 below;
      2. make a symbolic payment to Miss B of £2500. I set out the basis for this payment in paragraphs 67 and 68;
      3. commit in writing that for so long as it continues to investigate the noise nuisance Miss B reports, the Council will ensure:
        1. it maintains a written plan of action setting out how it intends to progress that investigation which it will share with Miss B and commit to reviewing at least once every three months;
        2. that part of that plan of action will be to include a named officer who will lead the investigation (and that it will tell Miss B of any change in the named officer). They will update Miss B at regular intervals on the progress of the investigation at not less than once every four weeks;
        3. that part of that plan of action will include specific consideration of daytime noise. The Council will make clear to all parties if it considers this must reduce also, for the statutory nuisance to end.
  2. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
  3. The symbolic payment also takes account of this guidance. In that we say that where fault by the Council has delayed investigation of a statutory nuisance, but for which the Council would have addressed the nuisance sooner, we will recommend a payment of between £200 and £500 a month for the complainant’s loss of amenity (or enjoyment of their home). In this case I considered the distress caused to Miss B and Mr C by the statutory nuisance significant, impacting on their sleep and ability to quietly enjoy their home. The Council was not primarily responsible for that, as it did not cause the nuisance. But the five months of avoidable delay in its investigation lengthened their exposure to it. I calculated a sum of £400 a month for each of those months, making £2000 in total.
  4. To that, I added £500 to recognise the additional distress caused to Miss B by the poor communications identified.
  5. I also wanted the Council to learn lessons from this complaint. I noted its enforcement policy does not address what should happen if prosecution does not result in ending a statutory nuisance. It has agreed that within three months of a decision on this complaint, it will introduce a policy for officers that will provide them advice on how to progress cases following a successful prosecution. This should include advice on potential options; introducing the need for having action plans and communications with those reporting nuisance.
  6. The Council will provide us with evidence when it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

  1. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Miss B. The Council accepted these findings and agreed to take action that I considered would remedy that injustice and improve its service to help avoid a repeat. Consequently, I decided I could complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings