Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council handled Miss X’s reports of noise, security risk and antisocial behaviour. The Council was at fault for its poor communication. It apologised to Miss X for its poor communication which was an appropriate remedy for the frustration she was caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to deal appropriately with her complaints about noise, security risk and antisocial behaviour related to a neighbouring property. She also complained it repeatedly requested noise monitoring, did not make any reasonable adjustments, and was poor in its communication.
2. Miss X said this impacted her wellbeing and work. She also said her mental health worsened and she felt abandoned by the Council and frustrated at having to chase it for an update.

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. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Anti-social behaviour

8. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
9. For example, councils may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub.

Statutory nuisance

10. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take ‘reasonably practicable’ steps to investigate potential statutory nuisances. Typical things which may be a statutory nuisance include noise from premises.
11. 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 premises; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

12. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits.
13. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
14. 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.
15. Councils have no duty to take enforcement action until they are satisfied that a nuisance exists and can be proved. Councils can 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 or premises causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

Health and safety standards rating system

16. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by their landlord to keep their property safe. Councils have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk.
17. If a hazard is a serious and immediate risk to a person's health and safety, it is known as a category one hazard. If a hazard is less serious or less urgent, it is known as a category two hazard.
18. If a council considers a category one hazard exists in residential premises they must take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with section 5 of the Act. Councils have discretion to take enforcement action if a category two hazard is identified.
19. A hazard might be caused by difficulties in keeping a property secure against unauthorised entry.

The Equality Act 2010 and reasonable adjustments

20. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010 including disability.
21. The reasonable adjustment duty set out in the Equality Act 2010 aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
22. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them. The duty is 'anticipatory'. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

23. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
24. Miss X lives in a private rental property near a licensed premises. In late September 2024 she complained to the Council about noise from the premises.
25. The Council contacted Miss X a couple of days later. It told her it had spoken to the premises about her concerns, and it had agreed to send its noise monitoring and mitigation plans to the Council.
26. Miss X sent further correspondence to the Council about noise from the premises and concerns about anti-social behaviour (ASB) and access issues to the communal external parts of her property.
27. In mid-October 2024 the Council planned a site visit to the premises and informed Miss X of this visit. It also installed noise monitoring equipment in Miss X’s property.
28. In late October 2024 the Council reviewed the noise recordings. It contacted Miss X to say that further noise monitoring was needed to “do a more detailed frequency analysis.” Miss X agreed and the Council installed the noise monitoring equipment the following day.
29. In November 2024:

• Miss X complained to the Council about its response to her ASB concerns. She said she told the Council of the impact on her mental health. Miss X told us she also disclosed to the Council that she had a disability as defined by the Equality Act 2010 when registering this complaint.
• The Council emailed Miss X’s letting agent the same day to ask about repairs to the damaged locks on the communal gates to Miss X property. The Council told us its officer also spoke to the letting agent on the phone but it had no recorded date of this conversation.
• The Council issued a stage one complaint response.

30. The Council’s stage one complaint response said:

• Her concerns had been passed to its environmental health team and the investigation was ongoing.
• It was the landowner’s responsibility to put in place appropriate measures to secure the land against trespass and the Council was limited in what it could do to assist with her concerns about ASB and trespass. It added that this was a civil matter and told Miss X to take it further with her letting agent and/or landlord and report any ASB concerns to the police.
• It explained that its environmental health team investigated health and safety concerns in private sector housing but there were limited situations in which security could be investigated and actioned as a housing risk by the Council. It said it was unlikely it could offer any assistance in Miss X’s case.

31. Council records of November 2024 showed that:

• the Council’s environmental health officer reviewed further recordings from the noise monitoring equipment and told Miss X it would discuss this with colleagues.
• the Council liaised with the premises regarding their availability to set a noise limiter. It also liaised with Miss X to take readings from her residence to assist in setting a sound limiter at the premises.
• Miss X made further reports of noise, and ASB in external areas of her property.

32. The Council undertook a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment in November 2024 regarding safety risk to Miss X from the broken locks on the communal gates. The HHSRS assessment noted that the area was a low-risk area, was well-lit, the property window had no known defects and the front door was new with a metal face. Based on this, the Council decided that formal action was not appropriate or proportionate.
33. In December 2024 Miss X contacted the Council to report more noise disruption.
34. On 23 January 2025 Miss X escalated her complaint. She complained about the lack of progress and updates from the Council about the noise investigation and following its interactions with the letting agent.
35. The Council contacted Miss X a few days later to request a meeting with her to explain the limitations of its powers. Miss X declined this meeting and requested for matters to be addressed in writing only due to the increased impact on her health and wellbeing.
36. On 21 February 2025 the Council issued a stage two complaint response. In it the Council:

• accepted that its officer had not updated Ms X since December 2024 and it apologised for this.
• explained it could not assist with the full range of concerns Miss X had raised as outlined in its stage one complaint response.
• said external doors cannot be open when recordings are being made as it impacted the evidential value of recordings.
• said it had not witnessed actionable noise nuisance so far, either from site visits or noise recordings, but the investigation remained ongoing. It requested Miss X to work with the Council to keep it updated with any relevant developments and noise recordings to ensure the investigation could be concluded.
• explained that licensing legislation primarily dealt with public nuisance rather than statutory nuisance and required more than one complainant. It said there had been two other allegations of noise nuisance from the premises but both had been closed due to non-response from the complainant after the initial contact. Monitoring records had not demonstrated breaches of the premises license.
• assessed risk of 'entry by intruders' under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) in relation to Miss X’s property and the risk had been calculated as a category two hazard. On that basis there was no formal action the Council could take in relation to securing the outside communal space but it had informally approached Miss X’s landlord regarding the broken locks on the communal gates. It also told Miss X that she may want to consider civil action against her landlord if she believed that there had been a breach of contract.
• told Miss X to report any ASB concerns and criminality in the communal area to the police.

37. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s investigation and the lack of enforcement action. She complained to us in February 2025. Miss X said she did not agree for the Council to install the noise monitoring equipment again due to the stress she had been caused.
38. As part of her complaint, Miss X said she has a pre-existing health condition that met the threshold for disability and the Council had a duty to anticipate and accommodate her needs as a disabled person when she showed clear signs of distress in her communication. She had described the impact of the ongoing issues on her health and wellbeing during multiple interactions with the Council and had also told the Council she was disabled when she complained in November 2024. But it was not until she had escalated her complaint and explicitly disclosed her health condition that the Council responded to this request.
39. The Council contacted Miss X in March 2025 and said noise recordings were needed to progress the case.
40. Miss X responded:

• She was not told that the noise recordings she had provided previously were problematic and this allegation had caused her distress. She did not want to risk further stress from allegations by the Council about any future recordings.
• She did not understand why she was being asked to undertake another evidence gathering process when enforcement action may not be possible.
• She had a mental health condition and was uncomfortable with recording equipment placed in her bedroom overnight which would be reviewed by a male Council officer. She added she was not comfortable with a male officer installing and collecting the noise monitoring equipment in her bedroom. She said the Council had not offered any accommodations or discussed any reasonable adjustments to make the investigation process safer and comfortable for her.
• She did not accept that getting further noise recordings from her was the only way to progress the noise investigation.
• She asked if the Council was willing to discuss reasonable adjustments that respected her circumstances.

41. The environmental health officer’s response to Miss X in late March 2025 said:

• The Council needed sufficient evidence to demonstrate legal breaches to take formal action. It had insufficient evidence of breaches so far to take formal enforcement action.
• Previous recordings and site visits had been helpful in the investigation but insufficient to warrant legal action. The Council required that any evidence was robust, objective and without any flaws to withstand court scrutiny.
• In consideration of Miss X’s disclosure about her health condition, a female officer could install or collect the noise monitoring equipment, or the Council could visit at a time when Miss X had family or friends with her. The officer said if Miss X did not want this, it could collect evidence by visits to the premises, her property or from outside her property however the latter would not be a true representation of the noise she experienced.
• Miss X’s complaint was that noise was interfering with her sleep therefore it sought noise recordings from her bedroom at times when she was being most disturbed.

42. In mid-April 2025 the investigating officer planned an unannounced joint visit with the licensing team at the premises which was postponed due to bad weather that would impact the accuracy of any readings.
43. In late April 2025 the officer visited the premises at night. The Council said no nuisance was witnessed.
44. In May 2025 the Council said the premises announced closure until September 2025. The Council told us it would make an unannounced joint visit to investigate when the premises reopened to conclude the investigation.

Findings

Noise

45. Our role is to look at processes councils follow to arrive at their decisions. Whether noise amounts to a statutory nuisance is the councils’ decision to make and a matter of professional judgment based on objective evidence.
46. Councils have a duty to take ‘reasonably practicable’ steps when investigating potential noise nuisance. The Ombudsman cannot find fault where a council has taken appropriate steps to investigate reports of potential noise nuisance.
47. The Council’s investigation into Miss X’s noise complaint was done without fault. The Council gathered evidence through noise recordings and site visits. It decided that this evidence did not amount to a statutory nuisance requiring formal action. It kept her file open and arranged to monitor the premises further when it reopened.
48. The law says organisations have to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles for people accessing their services. Miss X was able to access the Council’s service and raise her complaints. When she told the Council of the impact of its approach to noise monitoring on her mental health it offered her alternatives. There was no fault by the Council – it properly considered and responded to Miss X’s request for adjustments. It is not proportionate for me to investigate the Council’s wider approach to anticipating the needs of people with disabilities when designing its services.

Security risk

49. Councils have discretion to take action if they identify a category two safety hazard. The Council completed a HHSRS assessment and recorded its considerations and decision in response to Miss X’s complaints of security risk/trespass. It decided that formal action was not appropriate.
50. The Council had no legal obligation to act beyond this consideration. There was no fault in how the Council considered and responded to Miss X’s complaints of security risks.

Communication

51. The Council, in its complaint response accepted that its communication during parts of its noise investigation was poor. This was fault which caused Miss X avoidable frustration at having to chase the Council for an update. The Council apologised for this in its stage two complaint response. This was an appropriate remedy for the frustration caused.

Back to top

Decision

52. I found fault causing injustice and the Council’s action was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman