Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take effective action with complaints he made about excessive noise from a nearby business. We found the Council at fault for not acting on Mr X’s noise reports over the period considered which caused him significant frustration. We do not find fault with the Council’s later investigation into the noise concerns and the decision it made. The Council has agreed to apologise for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to deal with increased and ongoing noise from the operations on a site near where he lives for several years. He says this has caused him significant frustration and distress with having to endure regular noise disturbances and it severely impacts on the enjoyment of this home.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr X says the noise issues have been ongoing for over a decade. Part of the complaint is therefore late (see Paragraph 4). I will not consider that far back as I am satisfied Mr X could have come to us sooner about earlier periods. He came to us in 2021, but we advised him to complete the Council’s complaints process first. Mr X did not come back to us until this separate complaint in November 2024.
7. I investigated events from November 2023 (12 months before he complained to us) to February 2025 (when Mr X received the Council’s follow up investigation outcome as a result of his formal complaint).
8. I focused my investigation into the Council’s handling of Mr X’s noise concerns. Mr X has mentioned Planning as the Business has expanded. In my view, he has not made a specific complaint about the Planning approval decision, but this adds context to his concerns that noise will increase. If Mr X wants to specifically complain about Planning, he is entitled to make a separate complaint direct to the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views.
10. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. 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

Law and administrative background

Statutory nuisances

12. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
13. 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.

14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.

What happened – summary of key relevant events within the period considered

18. Mr X lives near a Business. Mr X has had longstanding issues with the noise from the site for over a decade, which the Council has been aware of throughout. The Business is a large site with heavy construction machinery and building equipment. It has grown over the years.
19. At the start of August 2024, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He had reported disruptive noise from the Business for years and it had not improved.
20. In mid-August 2024, the Council responded at Stage One. It noted it received seven noise reports from him in the past 12 months. It could not see any positive action being taken with these. It apologised and said it would investigate. It asked him to complete diary sheets to record noise, times and length of disturbances, to aid targeted monitoring and discussions with the Business. It also offered noise monitoring equipment (“NME”). It noted Mr X made a similar complaint in summer 2023 where it also failed to act with his reports and apologised.
21. Between August and October 2024, Mr X made several further noise reports to the Council, stating how much it was affecting him and his family’s mental wellbeing.
22. In late November 2024, Mr X came to us. We advised him to complete the Council’s complaints process.
23. In December 2024, the Council updated Mr X. It would meet with the Business to discuss the noise issues. It offered Mr X to install NME again. Mr X declined. He said he understood it was to evidence the impact of the noise, but he did not have room for it in his house at that time.
24. In late December 2024, the Council responded at Stage Two to his complaint. It noted Mr X had not returned any diary sheets. He had made two further noise reports, and the Council had visited twice since to speak to Mr X. It acknowledged varying work activities at the Business which combined, may result in excess noise, but it made it difficult to specify activities that the Council could then ask to be controlled. With recent observations, it noted general noise associated with normal day to day work activities on the site. After the holiday period, it had an action plan to monitor the case. It would send him its findings by the end of February 2025.
25. In January 2025, Mr X complained to us again. The Council told us it was in the process of concluding its action plan to investigate the Business’ noise levels.
26. In February 2025, the Council sent Mr X a detailed letter with its findings and outcome. It had spoken to the owner of the Business who explored measures to reduce noise. It analysed his diary sheets. It explained to him it would be very difficult to prove a statutory noise nuisance without monitoring from within his property which would better reflect and evidence the impact. As Mr X declined further NME and offers for officers to witness the noise within his property, the Council monitored noise levels outside his house. It detailed several visits it made over varying time periods. It concluded the evidence and data gathered did not support a statutory nuisance from the Business as a whole and so it could not take formal action under its Environmental Health powers. The Council explained how it came to these views considering the nature of the work, the reported times, other environmental factors, and Mr X’s individual circumstances.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

27. In response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged it did not have an answer as to why it did not take substantive action to Mr X’s noise reports in the 12-month period up to his August 2024 formal complaint. It was of the view that inaction was mainly because the nature of the activity reported did not provide reason to do so and it had limited powers to act in those circumstances.
28. But it was mindful of the importance of keeping residents informed of progress to avoid uncertainty and ensuring that records are properly maintained to support the reasoning for any outcomes reached. This including the closure of cases and to effectively communicate and manage the expectation of residents.
29. It confirmed several service improvements around its case management. This included through its regular team meetings, it would ensure particular attention is made to longstanding cases to ensure the most appropriate course of action is followed. It would document these decisions reached on the relevant record. It would inform complainants with decisions about statutory nuisances.

Analysis

30. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide if councils should take enforcement action or make our own judgements. That is the role of the council. We consider the process a council followed to make its decisions and whether there was fault in the way the council investigated or what it considered when it made its decisions. If there was no fault with the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. We may also criticise a council if it has not properly explained its reasons for decisions.

From November 2023 to December 2024

31. At the point of the Council’s Stage One complaint response in August 2024, the Council accepted and apologised for not taking substantive action with Mr X’s several reports of noise over a 12-month period. This is fault. Additionally, I note it responded the same way to a previous formal complaint Mr X made to it in summer 2023 with other noise reports. This earlier complaint is not specifically within the scope of my investigation. But this is a general observation that it did not appear to make marked improvements around this matter from that point.
32. With Mr X’s reports prior to August 2024, the Council should have decided what action it would take. Or if it would not, or could not act, it would be entitled to make these decisions, but it needed to record its reasons why at the time and explain this to Mr X. The Council did not do this - this is fault. This has caused him frustration. To its credit, the Council has since recognised this and taken steps to address this (I explore this later).
33. On balance, I cannot say had the Council done as it should with Mr X’s noise reports and properly recorded its decisions up to August 2024, whether it is likely to have led to a different outcome. But there is some uncertainty for Mr X as to had it not been for this fault, whether it may have made a difference at the time.

December 2024 to February 2025

34. The Council accepted its shortcomings in its December 2024 Stage Two response to Mr X’s complaint. It assured him it would proactively investigate his concerns. I am satisfied it did what it said, and I do not have concerns with the approach taken.
35. As part of this, the Council appropriately offered Mr X NME again to gain relevant evidence and for officers to listen to the noise in his property. It was Mr X’s choice to decline but this limited and restricted the evidence the Council was able to consider.
36. After its monitoring period, the Council clearly set out what it considered, the evidence gathered and the basis for its reasons as to why it did not identify a statutory nuisance. I recognise Mr X strongly disagrees and says the Council has failed to make improvements, but I am satisfied there is no fault in the decision-making process. Therefore, I cannot criticise the merits of this professional judgement and it was entitled to take this position. The Council has appeared to take on the learning and has now evidenced taking actions to investigate with a properly considered decision. Nevertheless, the Council could have done this with Mr X’s earlier noise reports.

Back to top

Action

37. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed, within one month of the final decision, to send Mr X a meaningful written apology for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the faults identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology).
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.
39. I am satisfied with the service improvements the Council has identified for itself. For now, I do not consider it necessary to make further formal recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the action to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman