Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments and failed to properly investigate her reports of persistent noise nuisance. Ms X also complained about the Council’s communication and its complaint handling. We found the Council at fault for not having regard for its duty to consider reasonable adjustments between November 2024 and February 2025. We also found the Council at fault for failing to have regard for its low-frequency noise (LFN) assessment procedure. However, for the reasons set out in the statement, we did not find this caused Ms X a significant injustice. We did not find the Council at fault in how it considered its reasonable adjustment duty from March 2025 onwards, or for the timeliness of its complaint handling.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. Repeatedly failed to make requested reasonable adjustments.
2. Failed to properly investigate or address reports of persistent noise and vibration nuisance from a neighbouring property.
3. Failed to effectively communicate and handle her complaints.
2. Ms X said the Council’s faults meant she struggled to engage with its services and its complaints procedure, making it harder to obtain support and challenge adverse decisions. This caused avoidable distress and frustration.
3. Ms X also said the Council’s failure to address the ongoing disturbance significantly affected her health and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions, in the course of performing their duties. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant evidence, or not properly explained the reason it has made a decision. We call this ‘fault’, and, where we find it, we can consider the consequence of the fault and ask the council to address this.
7. But we do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decisions, and we cannot make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf. If a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if a complainant feels strongly that its decision is wrong.
8. 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

9. In July 2025, Ms X complained about the conduct of specific Council officers. The Ombudsman decided not to investigate these matters. The Ombudsman does not investigate the conduct of individual officers and cannot direct councils to take disciplinary action against its staff.
10. 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. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
11. This means the Ombudsman cannot normally consider actions or events occurring after a complainant approaches the Ombudsman. In Ms X’s case, this was in March 2025. However, I consider the events leading up to the Council’s June 2025 noise nuisance inspection; the inspection itself; and the Council’s consideration of its findings from that inspection, are directly related to Ms X’s February 2025 complaint to the Council. I do not consider it would be reasonable for Ms X to have to make a further complaint about these events, given how linked they are to Ms X’s complaint. The Council was also able to consider and address these events as part of the Ombudsman’s enquiries, made in August 2025.
12. In line with the above legislation, I consider any events occurring after the point the Ombudsman made enquiries, in August 2025, are outside the scope of this investigation. It would be open to Ms X to bring any new or unrelated matters to the Ombudsman to consider.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Ms 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

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Reasonable adjustments

15. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.

Statutory nuisances

18. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay issuing an abatement notice for a short period, to try to address the problem informally.
23. 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.
24. 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.

Council’s Domestic Noise Procedure

25. The Council’s Domestic Noise Procedure sets out how the Council investigates complaints about different kinds of noise nuisance or disturbances. It also clarifies what procedures and equipment the Council will use in specific scenarios.

Council’s complaints procedure

26. The Council publishes its complaints procedure on its website.
27. The Council says when a complaint is made, it will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within five working days. The Council says the time taken to resolve the complaint may vary, depending on the complexity. However, the Council says it aims to reach a resolution within 10 weeks of the complaint being received.
28. The Council says it may sometimes need to extend the response deadline. It says it will inform the complainant if this is the case.
29. The Council says it will write to the complainant with the findings of its investigation. It says it will advise the complainant of their right to approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

30. Below is a summary of the relevant key events. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
31. In mid-November 2024, Ms X emailed the Council. She said:
• A laundry room had been installed in the neighbouring building, adjacent to Ms X’s bedroom. Ms X said use of the machines caused her room to shake and said the low frequency noise had been causing headaches.
• She had asked the Council’s noise team for help, but had found it hard to get the help requested. Ms X said she had autism and ADHD and found making phone calls difficult.
• Ms X said the disturbance was making her home uninhabitable, but she found the system inaccessible. She asked the Council to assist.
32. Ms X said the Noise team had agreed to visit her home during the day, but had not explained how they would investigate. Ms X said she was concerned because the noise was intermittent, she was not sure when the team would attend, and she struggled to use the phone due to her disability.
33. In late November 2024, the Council’s Noise team wrote to Ms X and asked her to contact it by telephone to discuss the issue. Ms X said she reported the matter again on 19 December 2024. I have not seen the details of this report. Ms X said she did not receive a response from the Council.
34. On 11 February 2025, Ms X wrote to the Council again. Ms X said despite her asking, the Council had not explained how it would assess this type of disturbance, which Ms X described as vibration and low frequency noise. Ms X said she was neurodivergent and had a disability. She said the Council had ignored her requests for information and she did not know who she should communicate with.
35. On 20 February 2025, Ms X complained to the Council.
36. The Council’s Noise team wrote to Ms X, again asking Ms X to call when the disturbance occurred. The Council also provided diary sheets and said it would put Ms X on a waiting list for recording equipment. Ms X said she could not contact the Council at night, because of medication she had to take. She said the Council had not addressed her disability, or her requests to adjust its service.
37. On 28 February 2025, the Council’s Noise team said it would send Ms X’s neighbour an advisory letter, asked Ms X to complete noise diary sheets, and asked Ms X to call the service when noise was affecting her. Ms X said she had said several times she could not use the phone due to her disability and asked how a disabled person was meant to access the service. The Council said Ms X could text the noise service.
38. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It said Ms X could call its noise monitoring service when the disturbance occurred. It confirmed it had placed Ms X on a waiting list for monitoring equipment and would contact Ms X when she reached the top of the list. Ms X said the Council had not properly addressed her complaint.
39. On 4 March 2025, the Council sent an advisory letter to the landlord of the neighbouring property, asking them to act to mitigate the disturbance. The Council said if it witnessed a nuisance, formal enforcement action could follow.
40. The Council’s Complaints team sought internal advice from its Equalities service on how to address Ms X’s accessibility concerns. The Noise team said it had already adjusted its service by sending an advisory letter without directly witnessing the disturbance. However, the Noise team said it needed complainants to call when the disturbance occurred, or it needed to install monitoring equipment. The Council’s Equalities service recommended gaining a better understanding of the barriers Ms X experienced, while explaining the actions already taken.
41. On 7 March 2025, Ms X told the Council it had taken no effective action, despite her reports. The Council said it moved Ms X onto its emergency list for noise recording equipment, giving her priority.
42. On 9 March 2025, Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint.
43. The Council’s Building Control service inspected the neighbouring property. The service wrote to Ms X and said it found everything in good order.
44. Ms X’s Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the Council on her behalf, highlighting the impact to Ms X's health and asking the Council to address the disturbance from the neighbouring building.
45. On 14 March 2025, the Council said it contacted Ms X to arrange installing the monitoring equipment. The Council said Ms X became distressed on the call and there was no agreement to install the equipment.
46. Ms X told the Council its Building Control service had lied about its findings. Ms X emphasised the impact on her health, saying she had been unable to sleep. The Council said it would re-open the matter and review Ms X’s concerns. Internal records show the Building Control service confirming the neighbouring property did not need any building regulations permissions.
47. On 21 March 2025, the Council told Ms X’s MP it had offered to install monitoring equipment, but Ms X had declined. The Council said it planned to install the equipment on 25 March 2025. It said Ms X could then record the disturbance when it occurred over a longer period. This recording equipment could be set to record on a timer. Ms X could start the recording to capture the noise, but leave the property if she needed to because of the disturbance.
48. The Council said it called Ms X the day before installation to confirm arrangements. The Council said Ms X became distressed, necessitating a call to emergency services, and the installation did not go ahead.
49. On 27 March 2025, the Council told Ms X’s MP that Ms X had declined to have the equipment installed. It said it could not take further action without directly witnessing the noise, either in person or through its recording equipment. Ms X’s MP told Ms X the Council needed to install monitoring equipment to move the matter forward. They asked Ms X to contact the Council directly.
50. Ms X continued to engage in correspondence with the Council about the impact of the disturbance on her health and wellbeing.
51. On 4 April 2025, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint:
• The Council said it recognised how distressing the situation had been for Ms X.
• The Council said it needed to witness the disturbance in person, or install noise monitoring equipment, to assess the disturbance. The Council said Ms X had declined to allow the recording device to be installed.
• The Council said it had prioritised Ms X’s case; contacted emergency services for Ms X; offered reasonable adjustments, such as a recording device with a timer that would allow Ms X to record the noise and leave the property if needed; and sent an advisory letter to Ms X’s neighbour.
• The Council confirmed its Building Control service had found no issues within its remit.
• The Council said its Social Care services had offered to help explore alternative accommodation options.
• The Council did not uphold the complaint.
52. In April 2025, the Council and Ms X exchanged correspondence about installing the monitoring equipment and how the disturbance would be assessed. Ms X said the Council appeared to be focusing on volume, when her concerns were vibrations. Ultimately, the Council and Ms X agreed the recording equipment could be installed on the 15 April. Ms X told the Ombudsman the visit caused her significant distress and she had to leave her home. Ms X said officers called emergency services, citing concerns for her welfare, but Ms X said this was an unhelpful intervention, which caused further distress and did not demonstrate an understanding or awareness of her disability.
53. Ms X complained to the Council about its actions. She said due to her disabilities, remaining in her home while the disturbance occurred significantly affected her wellbeing and she could not trigger the timer on the recording equipment when experiencing sensory overwhelm.
54. After this, the Council and Ms X exchanged correspondence about collecting the monitoring equipment. The Council said it needed to collect the equipment to assess the recordings and decide next steps. It offered different dates and times, saying it could liaise with Ms X or a friend for collection if they confirmed when would be convenient. Ms X said she could not be present and any collection would be at a friend’s convenience. She asked questions about the assessment and said the matter should have been resolved already. The Council and Ms X did not agree when the recording equipment could be collected.
55. A ward councillor, Councillor B, sought to act on Ms X’s behalf and facilitate a resolution between parties. Councillor B proposed a meeting between Councillor B, Ms X, a friend of Ms X’s choosing, and the Council. Ms X said she had already identified the issue and set out the impact. She did not understand why the Council would not act. Councillor B told Ms X the Council legally needed to collect its own evidence to move the matter forward.
56. On 7 May 2025, Councillor B met with the Council. Ms X did not attend the meeting, citing concerns about the Council’s motivations and conduct. Following the meeting, Councillor B wrote to Ms X with a proposed plan:
• The Council would provide temporary accommodation to Ms X for two weeks, intended to allow Ms X some respite while the Council carried out noise monitoring. The monitoring would involve accessing Ms X’s home, either through Ms X or a nominated person, and liaising with the neighbouring landlord, while using monitoring equipment and exercising professional judgment of the noise and vibration.
• Monitoring equipment would be left in Ms X’s property and collected before Ms X returned. The Noise team would use the recordings and their own direct observations to reach a decision on whether a statutory nuisance existed. If formal action was warranted, the Council would follow the statutory procedures. If formal action was not warranted, the Council would liaise with the neighbouring landlord to see if voluntary actions to address the disturbance were possible.
57. Ms X continued to express concerns about the Council’s intentions and queried why she should move to alternative accommodation; Councillor B pressed Ms X to decide whether she would go ahead with the proposed plan. Ultimately, Ms X did not move into temporary accommodation.
58. In May 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X:
• The Council said it had liaised with the neighbouring landlord to find an informal resolution. The Council said this was common practice. It said it could only take enforcement action if there was a statutory nuisance. The Council said it was unlikely further contact with the neighbouring landlord would help unless it could also access Ms X’s property. It noted Ms X had said the Council’s contact with the neighbouring landlord had made matters worse.
• The Council said it had prioritised installing monitoring equipment. It apologised the installation had been a distressing experience. It said it had been unable to collect the equipment because Ms X had not confirmed when the Council could do so.
• The Council said it had offered Ms X alternative accommodation for up to two weeks while it carried out monitoring. The Council said Ms X had not accepted the accommodation offered.
• The Council said it could not take any further action, so it would therefore close the case. It said its social care team had been involved due to concerns around Ms X’s wellbeing. The Council said it had contacted emergency services on multiple occasions, in accordance with its safeguarding responsibilities. The Council said it would share its correspondence with Ms X’s GP. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
59. In late May 2025, Ms X sent several emails to the Council, setting out the detrimental impact the circumstances continue to have on her. On 30 May 2025, a senior officer wrote to Ms X. The Council proposed inspections with new officers from its Building Control and Noise teams. It also repeated its offer of temporary accommodation.
60. Internal emails showed the Council preparing measures to support Ms X’s wellbeing ahead of the inspections, including advanced notice to Ms X’s GP and the Council’s adult social care team.
61. On 3 June 2025, the Council visited Ms X’s home and the neighbouring property to collect the recording equipment. The Council said it conducted a noise assessment. This consisted of running most – though not all – of the washing machines in the neighbouring property while assessing the impact in Ms X’s home. The Council noted some low-level noise and no clear vibrations within Ms X’s home. It concluded the noise witnessed did not amount to a statutory nuisance, citing the fact external traffic noise was more dominant in the room. The Council asked the neighbouring landlord to carry out some practical works to the laundry room and to put up a sign confirming the machines should not be used out of hours.
62. The Council said it then assessed the recordings obtained from Ms X’s home. It concluded while a noticeable low-level hum was present for extended periods throughout the recording, during the day and at night, this was not intrusive and did not constitute a statutory nuisance. The Council noted limitations to its analysis. It said due to the length of time the recorder had been running, its software could not perform the more detailed analysis it usually carried out.
63. On 17 June 2025, the Council returned to inspect the neighbouring property. It found the neighbouring landlord had completed the requested works. The Council did not access Ms X’s home to repeat an assessment, as there was no agreement to do so.
64. On 7 July 2025, the Council held a case conference involving different service areas. The Council prepared to end its investigation of Ms X’s complaint. Ms X continued to report incidents of specific disturbances to the Council and highlighted the impact to her wellbeing.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

Complaints handling

65. Ms X complained on 20 February 2025. The Council responded on 28 February 2025, within the timescales set out in its procedure. It provided Ms X with the right to approach the Ombudsman when it responded. I do not find the Council at fault for this.
66. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint in March 2025. The Council’s complaints procedure does not have an explicit second stage, but the Council said it would review Ms X’s concerns further. The Council provided further responses in April and May 2025, within the 10-week timescale set out in its complaints procedure. These responses reiterated Ms X’s right to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. I do not find the Council at fault for the timeliness of its complaints handling.
67. In its first complaint response, the Council did not address Ms X’s concern about a failure to consider making reasonable adjustments. It only provided details of the noise service and asked Ms X to call when the disturbance occurred, despite Ms X’s point being she could not access the service in this way. I note the Council then addressed the reasonable adjustments it had made in its further correspondence in April and May 2025.

Reasonable adjustments

68. The Council told the Ombudsman it does not have a standalone policy setting out how it will consider and implement requested reasonable adjustments. It is good practice for local authorities to have such a policy. This can help officers understand what reasonable adjustments are and how requests should be considered. However, there is no statutory requirement for a council to maintain a standalone policy and the absence of a policy does not in itself amount to fault.
69. The Ombudsman considers whether the Council can show, through its actions, decision-making and correspondence, that it considered its duty to take reasonable steps to remove barriers in accessing its services. The Ombudsman's role is not to determine whether a particular adjustment is sufficient or discriminatory. These decisions would ultimately be for the courts.
70. Ms X first informed the Council in November 2024 that she found its Noise service inaccessible. In particular, Ms X explained that she could not use the telephone to call and report a disturbance. This should have prompted the Council to assess what adjustments could be made to make the service more accessible for Ms X. Instead, between November 2024 and February 2025, the Council repeatedly advised Ms X to call when the noise occurred. During this four-month period, the Council did not show regard for its duty to consider reasonable adjustments. I find the Council at fault for its initial response.
71. The first example of an adjustment was the Council advising Ms X she could text, instead of calling, to report the disturbance. Records show the Council then consulted its Equalities service in March 2025 for advice. The advice encouraged exploring the accessibility concerns. An objective review of the Council's actions from this point shows a series of progressive adjustments made to try and alleviate barriers Ms X reported:
• When Ms X said she could not reliably record disturbances at night, or predict when they would occur, the Council prioritised her for monitoring equipment, noting the usual wait time was around four months.
• After Ms X said she found it difficult to remain in the property during disturbances, the Council clarified the recording equipment could be adjusted to run on a timer, allowing Ms X to leave the property while the disturbance was captured.
• When Ms X reported that she struggled to use the recording equipment when experiencing sensory overwhelm, and ongoing attempts to capture evidence would affect her wellbeing, the Council offered temporary accommodation to provide respite. It also proposed to access the property during this time for further monitoring, to carry out observations and to retrieve recording equipment without Ms X being present, aiming to reduce distress and disruption.
72. Taken together, these steps show the Council having regard for its duty to adjust its services, making an evolving effort to address the practical barriers Ms X identified at different points. I do not find the Council at fault for its approach to considering reasonable adjustments from March 2025 onwards.
73. The Council also said it had made other adjustments for Ms X. Summarised:
• The Council said its services provided a coordinated response and liaised with Ms X’s ward councillors. It said it offered Ms X a meeting with her ward councillor, senior officers and a friend or family member for support. It also said it kept the noise complaint open for longer than it normally would.
• The Council said it liaised with Ms X’s GP and the NHS Trust.
• The Council said it asked the neighbouring landlord to complete work on a voluntary basis, as no nuisance had been witnessed, and verified the requested work had been completed.
• The Council said it considered further monitoring, but decided any findings in alternative locations in the building would not be helpful.
• Senior officers had maintained oversight of Ms X’s case, asking matters to be reviewed several times.
74. Some of the Council’s actions would be considered examples of reasonable adjustments. Some other actions, however, like liaising with health professionals for safeguarding matters and oversight from senior officers, are generally actions the Council would be expected to take.
75. The Council has shown evidence of communication from Ms X which it says officers found challenging to dealt with. This included a high volume of frequent communication, which included language that officers found intimidating, and which contained multiple threats of self-harm. In this context, the Council acted without fault by referring Ms X to safeguarding teams and other support services, as well as involving senior staff to support officers’ welfare when managing the situation.
76. Despite finding fault with the Council in its initial response to Ms X’s requests for adjustments, I consider the Council’s later actions limited the impact of the earlier fault. I do not consider the earlier fault caused Ms X a significant injustice requiring a remedy. Given the context of her communication with the Council, and the support it offered to her during this period, I have decided not to recommend any additional remedy.

Noise nuisance investigation

77. Paragraphs 6 and 7 set out the Ombudsman’s role and remit. What this means in this case is the Ombudsman cannot decide whether the disturbance Ms X experienced amounted to a statutory nuisance. Only the Council and the courts can make this judgment.
78. In sum, the Council attended to witness the noise nuisance, completed an assessment, reviewed relevant recordings, provided informal advice to mitigate the noise, and returned to confirm this work was completed. These are the actions I would expect the Council to take. I do not find the Council at fault for these actions.
79. The Council’s internal records show in mid-June, senior officers wanted to repeat the monitoring assessment inside Ms X’s home, noting the Council was unable to do so in its previous visit. Given the noted limitations to both the previous inspection and the analysis of the recorded material, repeating the exercise would be a proportionate step. However, records show officers said this would not provide any meaningful information. They said other residents had not reported the noise and the neighbouring landlord had now completed the relevant work. Officers stated noise transmission had been minimal before the Council instructed the landlord to take certain actions, and transmission was likely to be lower now because of these actions. The Council then appears to have moved towards ending its investigation.
80. Ms X asked the Ombudsman why the Council did not reach an inconclusive finding, rather than deciding there was no statutory nuisance, given the limitations in its analysis. On this point, it is of note the Council wished to collect the recording equipment in April, but could not do so until June. The Council said there were limitations because the recording had been running longer than usual and the Council had been unable to collect the recorder sooner. Objectively, the Council would need further access to Ms X’s home to refine or clarify the initial analysis. The correspondence viewed showed Ms X being generally reluctant to allow the Council to access her property and restricted access would make this difficult. The Council therefore reached its decision on the information it had, which indicated no statutory nuisance. It also noted mitigation works had been completed in the neighbouring room, making a nuisance less likely to be present were it to repeat its exercise. While the Council could have reached an inconclusive finding, it was also entitled to reach a reasoned judgement, accounting for the circumstances and evidence available. The Ombudsman would not find fault in how the Council made its decision. We could not therefore question the merits of the decision itself.
81. The technical methodology of the Council’s assessments proved a source of significant disagreement. Ms X often told the Council the main issue was vibration and low frequency noise. Ms X often asked how the Council would assess this specific type of disturbance. The Council often just said it would use recording equipment to capture and assess the noise to make a determination.
82. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to provide a technical assessment of the Council’s inspection methodology. However, I believe it is of note the Council’s Domestic Noise Procedure has a section entitled “Tinnitus and Low Frequency Noise (LFN) Complaints”. This states:

“Officers investigating a case of LFN may not even be able to hear the noise complained about. This is possible because disturbance by LFN is known to occur at levels only slightly higher than hearing threshold, which varies from one individual to the next. Also, the rate of growth of perceived loudness with level is more rapid at low frequencies so that a sound could appear loud to one person whilst still inaudible to another. An additional factor is that ‘sensitisation’ to low frequency sound appears to occur over time, and therefore a brief visit may not give an accurate impression of what it is like to live with the sound.”

83. The policy sets out the steps an officer should take in these circumstances. It details the equipment officers should use and the need to seek advice from a team manager in cases where officers do not hear the noise complained about after repeated attempts. The policy states the team manager can then decide whether the Council needs to take further action, including whether to follow a procedure devised by the University of Salford for assessing LFN.
84. I have not seen the Council discuss this information with Ms X, or any evidence the Council internally considered this procedure. In the context of Ms X referring to the disturbance as vibrations, and low frequency noise specifically, as early as November 2024, it was a significant omission by the Council not to have referred to this procedure, even if only to decide whether it was appropriate to follow. Given the Council’s policy explicitly sets this out as a course of action, I have found the Council at fault for this omission.
85. Ms X repeatedly expressed reservations about the Council engaging with the neighbouring landlord. While I recognise Ms X’s strong views on this, the Ombudsman would not consider the Council at fault for informally engaging with the landlord. I have not identified any element of bias by the Council toward the landlord in the correspondence I have seen. Councils do have to engage with alleged perpetrators of noise nuisance to properly investigate the concerns raised. It is common for councils to recommend informal action where they have not identified a statutory nuisance. This practice can also be used to positive effect when it is actively used in respect of an authority’s equality duty: it can help facilitate a resolution when individuals are more disproportionately affected by a disturbance, but where the disturbance does not meet the “average person” threshold set out in law, as per paragraph 23.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

86. The Council delayed considering its duty to make reasonable adjustments for Ms X for close to four months. However, I cannot say the delay caused Ms X an injustice by affecting the subsequent progress of the investigation. When the Council later sought to address barriers to access, Ms X was often reluctant to engage with the proposed adjustments, or to allow the Council access to the property to investigate. In these circumstances, I cannot say earlier consideration of reasonable adjustments would have led to the Council carrying out its investigation sooner, or led to a different outcome for Ms X.
87. The initial delay in considering its duty, and some of the Council’s submissions to the Ombudsman, suggest some services within the Council were not uniformly aware of the duty to consider reasonable adjustments. I have taken this into account when considering remedy. However, given the wider context of the Council’s handling of the case, including the later adjustments it made and the difficult communication context, I do not consider a further service improvement recommendation is necessary.
88. The Council has not provided evidence that it took account of its LFN policy as part of its correspondence, or in conversations about assessing the reported disturbance. However, as Ms X ultimately did not engage with the Council’s reasonable efforts to investigate the noise, I do not consider circumstances would have been different had it referred to this policy earlier. I have therefore not found injustice.

Back to top

Decision

89. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, but I do not consider this caused Ms X a significant injustice. I have therefore not recommended a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman