Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not act properly to deal with noise from a local community centre. We found fault because the Council failed to adequately consider and review its decision about allowing Mr X access to a noise monitoring tool to record events from the inside of his home. This caused Mr X avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to him and review whether it should grant him access to the monitoring tool.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions relating to noise coming from a community centre next to his home. He says it has not properly acted to address the nuisance the noise causes him.
2. Mr X says this has caused him considerable distress and frustration. He says it has affected his mental health, wellbeing and the enjoyment of his home and garden.

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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. My investigation begins 12 months before Mr X complained to us in July 2025. My investigation ends when Mr X brought his complaint to us.
6. I have not investigated any matters linked to a change of wording about noise and statutory nuisance in the lease for the community centre. This is a change the Council was permitted to make and is a matter between it and its tenant.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory nuisances

9. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
10. 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;
• insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises; and
• accumulation of deposits on 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 property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
12. 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.
13. 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.
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 or fumes.
15. 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.

The Council’s out of hours noise nuisance team

16. The Council operates an out of hours noise team (the OOH team) who can visit to establish the details of the reported nuisance. Residents call a telephone number to make contact. This service operates in the evening until the early hours of the next day on Fridays and Saturdays. At the time of this complaint, it also operated from mid-morning until the early hours of the next day on Sundays and Bank Holiday Mondays.

What happened

17. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
18. Mr X has lived in his property for several years. His property is near to a community centre (the centre) which is used for a variety of different purposes. The Council owns the building but leases this out to a community association.
19. Mr X has made historic complaints to the Council about the noise from the centre before the period of this investigation.
20. Many of Mr X’s contacts with the Council to report noise issues during my investigation period were made using an online reporting form.

July 2024 onwards

21. At the beginning of July 2024, Mr X contacted the Council about noise coming from the centre. He was unhappy with the level of noise created by groups using it on Sundays and from play groups. Mr X said the noise disturbed him and meant he could not open his windows as it was too loud. He said this made his property hot and stuffy inside.
22. Mr X made further reports during July. The Council made a site visit for one of the reported incidents and asked those using the centre to turn the music down. The Council issued an advisory letter to the centre regarding the noise concerns. This asked it to maintain noise at a reasonable level to avoid causing inconvenience to neighbours.
23. Mr X reported six other noise issues throughout July and two in August. These were made outside of the hours for the Council’s noise team, so were logged only.
24. Mr X contacted the Council again in early and mid-September. One of these contacts was a call during the time the OOH team was available. The team said it would call the centre and ask it to turn the music down and for Mr X to call back if the music had not quietened within the hour.
25. Mr X made three further noise reports to the Council before the end of September. The Council said it was discussing matters with the centre and would be in touch when a resolution had been reached.
26. In October, Mr X made a further noise report to the Council. The Council considered various possible solutions which could be suggested to the centre. These included recommending a sound limiter and providing noise-reduction guidance. The Council also decided to check whether there was anything contained in the centre’s lease which related to noise and music events.
27. Mr X logged further noise complaints in November. The OOH team visited the site after one of these. The Council observed the noise but considered this was not a statutory noise nuisance.
28. The Council contacted Mr X later in November to discuss matters and Mr X said things had improved. The Council closed the case down.

2025

29. The OOH team visited the centre after a report of loud music from Mr X in mid-January 2025. When officers arrived, no music was heard. The centre users were asked to keep noise to a minimum and keep windows closed.
30. The Council closed the case again in February.
31. In mid-April, Mr X called the Council and said a large gathering had taken place outside the centre but that this was coming to an end. The Council said it would contact the centre to discuss matters. The Council advised Mr X it needed to witness the noise from within his property.
32. A week later, Mr X called the OOH team who then called the centre caretaker who was onsite. The Council noted no noise could be heard through the telephone when the caretaker was stood directly outside the venue.
33. Mr X logged reports online throughout the month, but these were all outside of the noise team’s service hours. Mr X called the OOH team late in April. The Council noted that Mr X did not wish for it to observe any noise from inside his property and had refused access in the past. The Council advised him it needed to witness any noise from inside of habitable rooms to see if it met the statutory nuisance threshold.
34. In May, the Council completed an unannounced monitoring visit in the early hours of a Saturday. This was outside the opening hours of the centre, so it was closed and no noise was witnessed.
35. The Council also wrote to Mr X to address his concerns. It said that previous changes to the lease between it and the centre had not required public consultation and there was no clause in the tenancy banning ball games. It said he should continue to report issues when they arose and the centre had been reminded to avoid noise disturbances. The Council sent Mr X a noise diary to complete. Mr X replied and refused to complete the noise diary.
36. On 21 May, the Council considered whether it should allow Mr X to access its noise monitoring tool on his mobile phone so he could record events and as he was refusing to fill out diary sheets or allow in-home visits. The Council decided not to give Mr X access at that time. It said it would not do so until it knew ‘a bit more’.
37. Mr X emailed to make a formal complaint on the same day.
38. After a complaint about loud music on a Saturday evening in June, the Council attended in person. The Council observed the event and found no music or excessive noise on site.
39. The next day, the Council carried out an unannounced monitoring visit. It observed loud chanting and singing from two separate function rooms hired to different groups. The Council spoke to the event organisers and asked them to close windows and doors.
40. The following weekend, Mr X called the Council about noise from the centre. The OOH team visited and observed an event taking place. The Council asked organisers to reduce the music volume which they did.
41. Mr X continued to log noise issues into July but these were outside the team’s working hours.
42. The Council issued its complaint response to Mr X on 8 July 2025. This confirmed matters related to the previous change of clauses in the lease. It explained the community centre had been on site for many years and that it had always been used for recreational and social activities. The Council also advised it must be able to monitor and confirm any statutory noise nuisance but could not act until a clear breach had been established.
43. Mr X contacted the Council on 12 July about noise issues. The Council called the centre caretaker who advised windows had been opened due to warm weather. The windows were then closed and music turned down.
44. Mr X continued to log issues outside of the team’s working hours throughout the rest of July.
45. Mr X then brought his complaint to us.

Analysis

46. In response to my enquiries about what action it had taken about the noise complaints, the Council said it had:
• responded promptly and consistently to each report received from Mr X;
• conducted proactive and reactive site visits;
• engaged with the centre and event organisers;
• repeatedly made out of hours visits;
• issued an advisory letter to the centre;
• maintained ongoing contact with the centre’s caretaker to resolve issues as soon as possible at the time they were reported;
• regularly communicated with Mr X about what was happening; but
• had not witnessed any noise which it considered to be a statutory nuisance.
47. I acknowledge Mr X’s deep frustration at noise from the centre. However, having considered the evidence on file, I agree with the Council’s stance that it had taken a range of approaches to consider and deal with the noise complaints Mr X made. It is for Council officers to make a professional judgement on what does and does not constitute a statutory noise nuisance. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault.
48. I acknowledge Mr X chose not to engage with diary sheets or a home visit. However, evidence shows that when Mr X refused, the Council considered (mid-May 2025) whether it should ask him to use a noise monitoring tool on his mobile phone. Internal Council communications show an officer deciding this should not yet be suggested to him as it needed to ‘know a bit more’.
49. In the next two months, Mr X made multiple further online reports. During this time, there were also three occasions where the Council asked centre users directly or through the caretaker to reduce the level of noise they were making or close windows and doors to stop noise spreading.
50. I have seen no evidence of the Council setting out what would prompt access to the tool or review whether Mr X could access it.
51. Considering the background of his reports and instances of the Council asking the centre and its users to minimise noise and close windows and doors both before and after mid-May, I am satisfied the Council should have made a timely review of its decision about the noise monitoring tool. I am satisfied not doing so was fault. It caused Mr X avoidable distress. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr X for the identified injustice; and
• review whether it should allow him access to its noise monitoring tool.
53. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman