Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action to prevent his neighbour’s noise and light nuisance. We found the Council to be at fault because it did not respond to Mr X’s report about light nuisance. This caused frustration and distress. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and contact him to discuss this issue. We did not find fault with the Council’s response about noise nuisance.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to take action to prevent his neighbour’s noise nuisance, especially during the night. He also complains about the Council ignoring he report about nuisance caused by his neighbour’s security light
2. He says this has caused significant distress, affected his ability to sleep and his overall well-being.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated what happened between November 2023 and January 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X 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

Relevant law and policy

Noise and light nuisance

8. 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;
• smoke from premises;
• smells and fumes from industry, trade or business premises;
• artificial light from 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.

What happened

14. Mr X lives in a semi-detached property. He says his neighbours (Mr and Mrs D) create excessive noise, including by their dogs barking day and night. Mr X first reported the issue to the Council in 2003. Noise monitoring equipment (NME) was installed, but the Council analysis of the data determined a statutory nuisance was not occurring.
15. Mr X reported the issue again in November 2023. In response, the Council agreed to contact Mrs D, and allow six weeks for the situation to improve. He was invited to contact the Council again if the problem persisted. Mr X was also invited to use the Council’s “Noise App” to keep a record of the nuisance. The Council wrote three letters to Mrs D between December 2023 and January 2024.
16. Upon reviewing Mr X’s evidence, the Council acknowledged the dog barking and made a referral for NME to be installed. However, this referral was cancelled in February 2024, when the case officer realised Mr X had only recently used NME. Mr X was told his case was closed.
17. The Council reopened Mr X’s case in April 2024 and NME was reordered the following month. The Council contacted Mrs D.
18. Mr X complained to the Council in August 2024 about the way his case had been handled. He said the case officer failed to appreciate the extent of the problem and was being harassed by him for more detail when he had already provided sufficient evidence. The case officer had then failed to respond to Mr X’s messages left on the Noise App. At other times the officer contacted him via the App rather than by email. His was concerned that his case was closed for no reason, despite having evidence of dogs barking through the night. He had also reported Mrs D’s security light. This was excessively bright and was tripped to turn on at the slightest movement. This affected his ability to sleep.
19. The Council, whilst not upholding his complaint, agreed to install NME again but there was a waiting list due to excessive demand.
20. Mr X, dissatisfied with the response, requested his complaint be reconsidered at stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
21. NME was installed in October 2024. This determined there was no statutory nuisance. Mr X requested a review of this decision by the Council’s ASB case review panel (the Panel). In December 2024, the Panel found no further action was necessary.
22. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2025.

The Council’s position.

23. In response to Mr X’s complaint, and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council’s position is summarised below.

• The case officer should have responded to Mr X’s email by email, not via the Noise App.
• Mr X’s case was closed in February 2024 because the case officer assigned to the case was unaware that the Council’s public protection team had installed NME the previous year
• The case officer did not harass Mr X. Rather, he has tried to speak to Mr X directly in order to gather as much evidence as possible from his perspective.
• It accepted Mr X’s report about Mrs D’s security light was overlooked. The Council agreed to contact Mr X about this matter.

Analysis

24. The Council provided documents to show it has responded to, and investigated, Mr X’s complaints of nuisance according to its procedures and practices. Officers installed noise monitoring equipment at his home and allowed access to its Noise App to enable him to make recordings of the noise he was experiencing. It also contacted Mrs D on several occasions to try and resolve the matter. Mr X also appealed the decision to the Panel, that endorsed the case officer’s decision.
25. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision there is no evidence of an ongoing statutory nuisance, but the decision is a matter of the officers’ professional judgement. We cannot question the merits of the decision itself without evidence of fault in the way it was made. I do not consider there is fault in the way this decision was made.
26. I acknowledge there were some problems with communication between the Council and Mr X. But I do not consider this to be sufficiently serious so as to make a finding of fault on this issue. The records show the case officer responded to Mr X’s email via the Noise App and he did not receive these messages. I accept this was frustrating for Mr X. But the case records also show the case officer made several other attempts to contact Mr X by email that he did not respond to. Because of this, I am satisfied Mr X was given ample opportunity to discuss his case with the Council, but latterly chose not to do so.
27. Whilst I acknowledge the Council may have raised Mr X’s expectations that NME would be made available in February 2024, the records show it quickly corrected this mistake and explained the reason why his case was being closed. There was no fault here.
28. The Council has accepted it overlooked Mr X’s report about light nuisance. He mentioned it several times in his correspondence with the Council. This should not have happened and is fault. In response to my enquiries, the Council offered to contact Mr X to discuss this matter.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council had agreed to the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X for failing to respond to his report about light nuisance.
2. Pay Mr X £50 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge his frustration caused by the Council overlooking his report about light nuisance.
3. If it has not done so already, contact Mr X to discuss the light nuisance issue.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the personal injustice to Mr X. On this basis, I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman