Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council’s investigation of a noise nuisance complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about dogs barking at a neighbouring property for long periods on most days. He says the Council failed to serve an abatement notice when it established a statutory noise nuisance had occurred. He also complains the Council did not complete monitoring visits in line with guidance. He wants the Council to review the monitoring equipment it offers to install and follow guidance for serving abatement notices.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council received Mr X’s noise complaint in May 2023 and started investigating. By September 2023, the Council had determined there was a case for statutory noise nuisance by Mr X’s neighbour.
5. The Council then made site visits, had discussions with Mr X’s neighbour and installed noise monitoring equipment in Mr X’s home. From these, the Council did not observe any further instances of noise that amounted to a statutory nuisance.
6. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about its handling of his noise complaint in late January 2025. It apologised that its communication with him had not been clearer. It explained the further work the Environmental Health Officer needed to do before issuing an abatement notice. Upon completion of further evidence gathering, the Council concluded a statutory noise nuisance was no longer occurring. Since responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has kept open its offer to reinstall noise monitoring equipment in Mr X’s home.
7. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on councils to investigate reports of nuisance and take reasonable steps to investigate any complaints of statutory nuisance it receives. The task of detecting statutory nuisances is usually delegated to Environmental Health Officers. They are the recognised experts and their professional judgement is very important – if they consider a nuisance is being caused, a Magistrate will normally accept their view. However, the Environmental Health Officer may consider a nuisance is not being caused.
8. We cannot overrule the Council’s decision on whether to take action. It is not our role to say whether the noise is a nuisance in law or whether action must be taken to reduce it. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
9. The Council’s website states that it will try to resolve noise nuisances informally wherever possible. The Council seems to have taken this approach in Mr X’s case and is satisfied with the neighbour’s action to help minimise the noise disturbance.
10. The Council’s officers collected relevant information and followed their investigative process in making their decision not to serve an abatement notice. They were entitled to make that decision and on how they investigated the noise. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. Mr X’s disagreement with the Council’s decision is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman