Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed investigating his noise complaint. We found the Council delayed taking action and responding to Mr X, which caused him distress and inconvenience. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to pay Mr X £500 to recognise the impact of the delay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) failed to investigate his noise complaint about a wet waste truck operating outside his home. The Council did not respond to his reports or take action to stop the noise, which caused him distress and inconvenience.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered events from November 2024, when Mr X made a noise complaint to the Council, until the Council attended the site and took action in March 2025.
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

Statutory nuisances

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.
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. 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

13. Mr X first reported the noise from a wet waste truck operating overnight outside his home in early November 2024. He received no response so made a formal complaint to the Council in mid-November. He said the noise affected his sleep and caused him stress.
14. The Council responded to his stage one complaint in December 2024 and apologised for the delay. It said he would be contacted by an investigating officer.
15. Mr X escalated the complaint to stage two in January 2025, however the Council did not respond until April 2025. Mr X first raised a complaint to us in January 2025.
16. The investigating officer visited the site in March 2025 and found the truck was there due to emergency drainage works. Mr X said he was at home during the visit, but the Council said he was not available.
17. The Council issued advice to the contractor to limit operating hours and use quieter vehicles to reduce the noise problem. It notified Mr X of this in its stage two complaint response and told Mr X how to raise further concerns if the problems continued.

Analysis

18. The Council delayed investigating Mr X’s noise complaint. It did not visit the site until March 2025, five months after Mr X first reported the issue. This was fault.
19. Mr X said the truck continued to operate outside the agreed hours after the Council’s visit in March 2025, and the Council did not take further action. The Council had told Mr X to report any continuance of the noise problems. If Mr X has concerns about how the Council handled any further reports of noise after March 2025, he should raise this as a new complaint to allow the Council a chance to respond.
20. The delays between November and March caused Mr X distress and inconvenience. He had to chase the Council for a response and suffered from the noise problems for 7 months.

Back to top

Action

21. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr X the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. Apologise to Mr X in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology;
2. Pay Mr X £500 for the delay in responding to his noise complaint.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman