Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act properly when it assessed noise coming from a sports club close to his home. We find the Council to be at fault. The Council did not properly consider Mr X’s complaint. It failed to make a proper assessment of the noise. It should re-assess the noise and take the appropriate action, should a statutory nuisance be found.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Councils assessment of noise nuisance coming from plant machinery at a local sports club. He said the Council failed to take proper action.
2. Mr X said the impact on his family has been profound, especially on his wife, who has been unable to sleep due to the constant noise. He said the noise disrupts their day-to-day life and their emotional wellbeing has been impacted.

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. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments from Mr X and the Council before moving to a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

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

9. 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.

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
13. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.
14. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.
15. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.
16. The Councils Noise Nuisance Procedure explains this process and the steps a service user can take to report an alleged nuisance. It explains action the Council will take, and the timeframes for taking each step.
17. The procedure also considers when officers form the Council should make site visits to investigate noise: at the time the complaint alleges it is most common / problematic.

What happened here

18. In May 2024 Mr X reported noise nuisance to the Council. He said the noise from a sports club close to his home had increased. The Council sent Mr X a noise diary to complete and return. A noise diary is a document the Council asks complainants to complete, to understand the frequency, volume and impact of reported noise nuisance.
19. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s report and contacted the sports club to notify it of the complaint. The sports club told the Council it had not changed its equipment.
20. A few weeks later the Council visited Mr X at home and assessed the noise.
21. The Council visited the sports club and assessed the area the noise was believed to be coming from.
22. During July the Council maintained contact with the sports club, clarified the complaint, and confirmed that there had not been any change to plant machinery or equipment at the club.
23. Mid July the Council visited Mr X at home, to assess the noise again.
24. The Council assessed the noise in different areas of the property, with windows and doors, open and closed.
25. The Council closed its investigation at the end of July. It wrote to Mr X to update him. It decided noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance. In the letter it told Mr X what he could do should he be concerned about planning breaches. It explained its decision to take no further action. It signposted Mr X to the complaint procedure should he wish to complain.
26. Mr X complained to the Council. He said he did not accept the Councils findings.
27. The Council made its response to Mr X in September.
28. In summary it said,
• It reviewed action taken by the Council officers,
• It considered the time-of-day site visits were carried out,
• Various legislation may impact the Council’s action, and
• The Council would liaise further with the sports club and its internal planning team to ensure that planning conditions had been thoroughly explored.
29. The Council made enquiries with its planning team. It asked for expert advice and guidance, and further consideration of all options available to it to address Mr X’s report of noise nuisance.
30. It maintained its position that the noise did not reach threshold for a statutory nuisance.
31. At the start of October Mr X requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the Councils complaint procedure.
32. At the end of October, the Council responded to Mr X via stage two of its complaint procedure. It summarised:
• Action taken by the Council to assess the noise,
• Noise monitoring sent in by Mr X did not evidence a nuisance,
• Its stage one response, and provided clarity around wording about follow up action with the sports club,
• Planning conditions had not been breached, and
• Confirmed it did not uphold the complaint, and signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.

My findings

33. Council case records reveal the Council initially noted the noise at Mr X’s property to be ‘unreasonable,’ ‘quite loud’ and ‘24/7’. It was clear the Council had observed some noise.
34. The Council gave Mr X specific advice about windows and doors being closed, to manage the noise levels.
35. During this investigation, Mr X told us the Council did not assess all the rooms where the noise could be heard. The Council said it assessed the rooms Mr X directed it to. In Council case records it showed noise being assessed in two of Mr X’s bedrooms. One of these rooms is where Mr X said the noise was at its worst.
36. The Council said it does not assess noise nuisance within a bathroom area. A bathroom is not a habitable area, and it is for the Council to therefore decide that noise in a bathroom would not warrant an assessment. I do not find fault with this.
37. However, I do find fault with the Council’s overall assessment. The advice issued to Mr X by the Council was inappropriate. Keeping windows and internal doors shut to mitigate noise from the sports club is not a practical solution for Mr X and his family. It should not be up to Mr X to adapt his way of living, due to noise caused by the club.
38. While the complaint responses were thorough, and attempted to address each of Mr X’s points, they were confusing in parts. The Council stated on two occasions that there was no statutory nuisance occurring, in the report of noise made by Mr X. However, on two occasions the Council also stated it would investigate the noise further.
39. Mr X was confused by this response. He assumed the Council being satisfied there was no nuisance occurring, meant it did not have to investigate further. This is understandable.
40. From Council case records it appeared the Council were taking extra steps to satisfy itself that the nuisance had not occurred. However, the unclear response, and subsequent action, suggested the Council lacked confidence in its decision.
41. The rationale for why the noise did not warrant a statutory nuisance was unclear. The suggestion Mr X and his family should adapt their way of living by closing windows and doors was impractical.
42. I find fault with the Council. The Council did not make a proper assessment of the noise reported by Mr X or offer practical or reasonable solutions in response to the complaint.
43. Mr X said he and his family have had to change their daily routine, as noise from the sports club impacts them, day and night. He said they have been unable to use their garden and must keep windows closed year-round. Mr X said it has taken a toll on the family’s mental and emotional wellbeing.

Back to top

Action

44. To remedy the injustice suffered by Mr X, and his family, within four weeks of receiving a final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an Effective Apology. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings,
• review the outcome of its investigation in view of the fault I have identified here and consider again whether it has established a statutory nuisance. If so, it should then take enforcement action as appropriate, and
• if it still decides there is no statutory nuisance, it should write to us to explain why.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice to Mr X and his family. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice suffered.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman