Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with her concerns and complaints about noise disturbance from a school near her home. There were some faults by the Council with how it dealt with Ms X’s case and its poor communication with her. This caused injustice to Ms X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s:
1. failure to properly deal with her complaints about noise disturbance from a school near her home
2. failure to consider the video evidence it asked her to submit in relation to her noise disturbance reports
3. poor communication with her.
2. Ms X said the matter caused her sleepless nights, distress, aggravation, upset and frustration. Ms X also said the matter caused her the time and trouble reporting repeated noise disturbance incidents to the Council, chasing it for its response, resolution and for making complaints.

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 an injustice, 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. 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

7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. I have not exercised discretion to investigate matters before March 2024. These are late complaints, and I consider it reasonable for Ms X to have complained about the matters earlier. There are no good reasons to investigate them now.
9. 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)
10. In this case, although the Council issued its final response to Ms X’s complaint in July 2024 and Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in March 2025, I have exercised discretion to investigate matters until August 2025. This is because I find it unreasonable to refer Ms X back to the Council to deal with matters between April 2025 and August 2025 given the Council has accepted some faults with how it dealt with some of the noise nuisance reports Ms X submitted to it within this period. The Council has also informed the Ombudsman about its proposed actions to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X as a result of its faults. This will be addressed below.
11. Therefore, I have investigated matters from March 2024 to August 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

What I found

Statutory Nuisances

14. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’ such as noise from premises.
15. 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.

16. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
17. 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.
18. If a council decides a noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, it must serve an abatement notice requiring the perpetrator to stop. But if a council decides that the noise made does not amount to a statutory nuisance, it can continue to use informal intervention to try to solve the problem. Examples of such action may include writing to the person causing the nuisance or suggesting mediation.
19. Temporary Event Notices (TENs) are UK permits required to carry out ‘licensable activities’ on unlicensed premises. Licensable activities include providing entertainment, such as music, dancing or indoor sporting events.

The Council’s Policy

20. The Council can investigate issues like loud music and building work from construction sites.
21. The Council’s procedural guidelines for officers dealing with noise and nuisance investigation include:

• Objectively assess the noise or nuisance complaint, gather evidence, including recordings, witness statements, or relevant information. Officers should document the date, time, and location of the incident for reference.
• Clearly communicate the nature of the offense and its impact on the community. After a noise and nuisance incident is reported, the Council will usually try to speak with the perpetrator either in person or by letter. In most cases, one of the Council’s noise officers will call or email the complainant to discuss the issue. Officers should provide perpetrators with an opportunity to voluntarily address/rectify the issue and explain potential legal consequences if the issue persists.
• Conduct noise and nuisance investigation, officers should employ appropriate tools and technology for noise measurement SPL Meter and analysis, if necessary, otherwise pursue with subjective investigation.
• Consider conducting periodic surveys to identify potential sources of disturbance. Officers should work closely with local law enforcement if escalation is necessary and collaborate with other relevant agencies, local SNT (Safer Neighbourhood Team), or departments to address specific issues effectively.
• Generate comprehensive reports summarising investigations, actions taken, and outcomes including witness statements. Officers should provide feedback to the community/residents on resolved issues and ongoing efforts.
• Ensure that all investigative activities comply with relevant laws and regulations.
• Out-of-Hours officers will respond to the complainant within 1 hour promptly assessing the alleged noise or nuisance, taking requisite actions such as providing advice over the phone, offering services such as the provision of a diary sheet to the complainant, and dispatching a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator by the daytime officer.
• Additionally, officers encourage the use of tools like ‘the noise app’ by sending the invitation link when applicable for evidence gathering, followed by subsequent action within the daytime service and the issuance of an abatement notice on the likelihood of nuisance under Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Key events

22. Ms X lives near a school. Ms X said the school organises festivals and events on its premises which causes noise disturbance especially during unsociable hours.
23. In early March 2024, Ms X submitted a report to the Council about noise disturbance (loud music) from the school.
24. On 19 March, the allocated officer contacted Ms X to discuss her concerns. The officer said the Council would contact the school to discuss Ms X’s alleged noise disturbance and how to address her concerns. The officer advised Ms X to provide the Council with video footage of noise disturbance if it recurred. Ms X agreed. The officer said if there was no further contact from Ms X within 14 days, the Council would assume the issue had been resolved and that its assistance was no longer required.
25. On the same day the Council visited the school to address Ms X’s concerns. The school said it would take further action to prevent future disturbance. The Council took no statutory enforcement action, but it advised the school that it may need to obtain Temporary Event Notices (TENs) for future events. The Council took no enforcement action.
26. The school informed the Council that its website stated TENs were not required if an event finished by 11pm, so it asked the Council to clarify the requirements to obtain the TENs. The Council directed the school to its licensing department for further assistance about the TENs.
27. On 22 March, Ms X reported another noise disturbance incident from the school. Ms X informed the Council she had a video footage of the incident which she had attempted to submit to it, but she was unable to send it due to the size of the file. Ms X asked the Council to advise her on how to submit the video footage. She also asked the Council if it had visited the school as previously agreed and what the Council’s next steps would be, due to the ongoing noise disturbance from the school. Ms X received no response from the Council.
28. Ms X said she subsequently sent the video footage of the noise disturbance from the school to the Council.
29. The Council said it did not receive further complaint from Ms X for 28 days which indicated the measures it had taken with the school was effective. The Council closed Ms X’s case on 11 April.
30. In May, Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council about how it had failed to properly deal with her noise nuisance reports and concerns. Ms X also complained about its poor communication with her and its failure to acknowledge or consider the video footage she submitted to it as requested.
31. In its responses to Ms X’s complaint, the Council said it was satisfied with how it dealt with Ms X’s initial noise disturbance concern which was submitted in early March. The Council explained it took prompt and proper steps to address her concerns which it said was in line with its policies and procedures. But the Council:
1. said it did not receive Ms X’s video footage because the Council’s servers restricted access to certain file types, and it was not possible to review her recording. The Council said it then failed to inform Ms X about its inability to receive and review the footage despite her subsequent contact with the Council.
2. said there was little value in reviewing the video evidence because it had been months since the recorded alleged noise disturbance happened. But the Council said it would retain Ms X’s reports about the school’s alleged noise disturbance for future purposes.
3. said it did not respond to Ms X’s 22 March noise disturbance report which took place after the Council’s initial discussions with the school. The Council accepted it would have been appropriate for an officer to have attended or made further contact with the school following the new report.
4. said it had recently been through a transformation process to improve its service in relation to alleged noise nuisance.
5. said it was in a process to introduce a new platform/noise application for receiving audio and video files. The Council said it would be launching the noise application in the next few months.
6. upheld Ms X’s complaint and it apologised for its failings.
32. On 31 July, the Council contacted Ms X for additional information about her concerns. Ms X told the Council the noise disturbance from the school mainly occurred around 11pm. The Council advised Ms X to contact its out-of-hours service if the issue recurred. The Council said it would contact the school about Ms X’s ongoing concerns and to discuss compliance.
33. In late August, the Council said it received no further correspondence from Ms X about disturbance from the school which indicated the matter had been resolved. So, the Council closed Ms X’s case.
34. In mid-March 2025, Ms X submitted another report of noise disturbance from the school to the Council. Ms X said the incident occurred at 1am. She said this had been a long-standing issue and that the Council had failed to resolve the issue despite its previous visit and contact with the school.
35. Few days later, the Council issued a written warning letter to the school and asked it to take measures to minimise the disturbance to prevent further intervention. The Council also provided Ms X with a diary sheet and advised her to keep a noise diary over a three-week period. The Council also provided her with details of its out-of-hours service to report any weekend disturbances.
36. In June, the Council provided Ms X with details of it recently launched noise application and it asked her to record any noise disturbance using the application which it would use to investigate her concerns. The Council said Ms X should also continue to submit online reports of future incidents as well. And in July, the Council closed Ms X’s case because it had not received further correspondence from her and it considered the matter resolved.
37. In August, Ms X submitted a further report to the Council about building work noise from the school including Sundays. Ms X asked the Council to urgently investigate the matter and take appropriate enforcement action. The Council did not respond to Ms X, and it did not investigate the concerns she reported.
38. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it took proportionate and timely action to investigate and address Ms X’s concerns/complaints about the disturbance from the neighbouring school. The Council said it issued the school with advisory letter, it supported Ms X with monitoring tools, and it conducted follow-up communications. The Council said it subsequently closed Ms X’s case when it received no further correspondence and diary sheets from her which indicated the matter had been resolved. But it said, the Council could have communicated better with Ms X about the case closure.
39. The Council confirmed it did not investigate the reports Ms X submitted in August 2025 due to an administrative error (the report was logged under her previously closed case). The Council provided the Ombudsman with a list of the proposed actions it would take to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X:
1. a formal written apology for its administrative oversight and the delay in addressing her August 2025 complaint, and any distress or inconvenience caused as a result.
2. committed to fully review the August 2025 complaint, including a fresh assessment of any evidence submitted and, if appropriate, a site visit or further monitoring. The Council would advise Ms X about the monitoring period and timescales for review to ensure her concerns would be fully captured and addressed.
3. would assign a named officer as a single point of contact for any future concerns, to ensure continuity and clarity in communication with an agreed review period for the next two months or until the matter is resolved, whichever is latest.
4. would provide assurance that internal procedures for logging and tracking complaints have been reviewed and improved to prevent similar errors in the future including raising this with staff in their training.

Analysis

40. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. This means it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was a statutory nuisance; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council investigated the noise disturbance concerns correctly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
41. In this case, Ms X submitted two noise disturbance reports in March 2024. The Council took prompt action when it received the first report from Ms X in early March. The Council contacted and discussed Ms X’s concerns with her, it visited the school to address the noise concerns, and it advised the school it may need to obtain TENs for future events. These were not faults.
42. With the second report in March, the Council failed to acknowledge and failed to investigate the report Ms X submitted on 22 March. The Council also failed to assess the video footage she submitted to it in support of her concerns. These were faults. It shows the Council failed to take reasonable steps to investigate Ms X’s concerns in line with Environmental Protection Act 1990.
43. I find the Council wrongfully closed Ms X’s case on 11 April. This is because Ms X’s case was closed within 20 days of her previous report dated 22 March and not within the 28-day timeframe stated by the Council. Also, the Council did not notify Ms X about the case closure and whether it found the noise disturbance from the school she reported amounted to statutory nuisance or not. These were faults.
44. Furthermore, the Council did not contact the school about Ms X’s ongoing concerns and to discuss compliance as it stated when the Council spoke with Ms X on 31 July after she formally complained to it. This was fault.
45. The Council’s identified faults caused Ms X distress, frustration and uncertainty in not knowing whether the Council properly investigated her noise disturbance concerns about the school.
46. I find when Ms X told the Council about the ongoing disturbance and that the incidents usually happened around 11pm, the Council should have been alerted to have conducted further investigation into the matter. For instance, there was no evidence to show the Council considered whether to install noise monitoring equipment within Ms X’s property, issue diary sheets or that it conducted further site visits to assess the reported ongoing noise disturbance. Similarly, there was no evidence to show the Council followed up on its previous suggestion that the school may need to have obtained TENs. This is because on balance, I find the Council’s suggestion about obtaining TENs indicated there was some kind of issue with noise emanating from the school premises.
47. When the Council received another report from Ms X in mid-March 2025, the Council promptly issued a written warning letter to the school and asked it to take measures to minimise the disturbance and prevent recurrence. The Council also provided Ms X with details of its out-of-hours service to report any weekend disturbances and gave her a diary sheet to record any disturbance from the school over a three-week period. These were not faults.
48. Ms X did not submit a recorded diary sheet of the alleged noise nuisance to the Council to allow it to gain a more detailed picture of when the disturbance was happening and how it was affecting her. I find this mitigated the injustice caused to Ms X. And when the Council did not receive further correspondence from Ms X, it closed her case in July 2025. This was not fault.
49. As regards the report Ms X made in August 2025, the Council was at fault for its failure to deal with her concerns/complaint. This was fault.
50. In conclusion, the Council already accepted faults in how it dealt with Ms X’s case. This included its failure to deal with Ms X’s August 2025 report, the 22 March 2024 report and its poor communication with her. As already stated above, these were faults. It caused Ms X distress, frustration and uncertainty in not knowing whether the Council properly investigated her noise nuisance concerns about the school.
51. I acknowledge the Council proposed some actions (paragraph 39) to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X as a result of its faults. These are welcome but I find the proposed actions are not sufficient in line with our guidance on remedies, which I will address under the ‘action’ section below.

Back to top

Action

52. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Ms X and make her a symbolic payment of £100 to acknowledge the injustice caused to her by the Council’s failure to properly deal with the noise disturbance reports she submitted on 22 March 2024 and in August 2025 and its poor communication with her. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• liaise with Ms X and as offered, the Council should start its full review of Ms X’s August 2025 concern/complaint. This should include a fresh assessment of any evidence submitted and, if appropriate, a site visit or further monitoring. The Council should advise Ms X about the monitoring period and timescales for the review to ensure her concerns would be fully captured and addressed
• as offered, the Council should assign a named officer to Ms X as a single point of contact for any future concerns, to ensure continuity and clarity in communication with an agreed review period for the next two months or until the matter is resolved, whichever is latest
• as offered, provide evidence the Council’s internal procedures for logging and tracking reports/complaints have been reviewed and improved to prevent similar errors in the future including sharing the lessons learnt from Ms X’s case with relevant staff in their training
• ensure the Council adheres to its timescales for closing its service users’ alleged noise nuisance cases and inform them when their cases have been closed, setting out the reasons for the case closure
• remind relevant officers of the correct procedure to deal with alleged noise nuisance complaints in line with Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Council should also clearly record how it assesses and decides whether a statutory nuisance exists.

53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find some faults by the Council causing injustice to Ms X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman