Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint about noise from a neighbouring property. We have found fault, causing injustice, by the Council in the avoidable delays and communication failures in its investigation of Mr X’s noise complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising to Mr X and making service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his reports of excessive noise by occupants of the property adjoining his home. He says the Council failed to:
1. carry out a proper investigation of his noise complaint; and
2. take any action to stop the noise or require the owner of the property to complete sound-proofing work.
2. Mr X says, because of the Council’s delays and failure to investigate properly, he continued to suffer from the impact of the noise nuisance and had to incur the cost of soundproofing his home. He was also caused time and trouble chasing the Council for progress with the investigation.
3. Mr X wants the Council to: recognise the impact on him of the noise from the neighbouring property, which operates as a business; take effective action to deal with the noise issues; and pay redress for the upset and frustration its failures have caused him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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)
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. I have investigated what happened during the period from June 2024 when Mr X contacted the Council’s Neighbourhood Services team about the noise, until May 2025, when Mr X brought his complaint to us.
8. I have not investigated further events after May 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr 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

What should have happened

Statutory nuisances - noise

11. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances. A potential statutory nuisance includes noise from premises.
12. 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.

13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.

Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

18. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.
19. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.

What happened

20. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

June 2024: Mr X’s noise complaint to the Council

21. Mr X’s home shares a party wall with the neighbouring property (property B). This property is owned by a business which provides accommodation to vulnerable adults. They are supported by care workers employed by a healthcare business.
22. On 10 June Mr X complained to the Council’s Neighbourhood Services team (the team) about noise nuisance from property B. He said the noise included shouting, screaming, shift-changing noise, stomping up and down stairs and conversations between care workers and residents. The noise levels were excessive and continued overnight.
23. On 12 June, the team contacted Mr X for further information about the complaint.

July to August 2024: the Council’s initial response to the noise complaint

24. On 10 July the team visited property B and discussed the noise complaint with staff. The staff said other local residents had contacted them directly about noise and they were creating a noise management plan to tackle the issues.
25. On 15 July, as he had not received any updates, Mr X contacted the Council again about his noise complaint.
26. On 17 July, the team asked property B’s staff to send the noise mitigation plan. This was provided the same day.
27. On 28 August, the team told Mr X it had visited property B and raised awareness about the noise issues with its residents.
28. Mr X asked for more information, including the date of the visit and about the noise reduction plan. He also asked what standards a business providing residential support to people in a semi-detached house would be expected to meet regarding noise insulation and impact on neighbours.

September to November 2024: further contact about the investigation

29. On 4 September Mr X’s consultant assisting him with the noise issues asked the team to set up recording devices at Mr X’s home to measure the noise from property B.
30. On 11 October, following requests for a response, the team spoke to the consultant about the next step. They said they would look at whether there was a statutory noise nuisance and install noise monitoring equipment, when available, to record the noise over a two/three-week period.
31. On 26 October the team made a home visit to Mr X. They discussed the areas where the noise was heard and that, to constitute a statutory noise nuisance, it would have to be heard in a habitable room. They said Mr X would need to complete a two-week noise diary before they could carry out formal noise recordings.
32. The team sent diary sheets to Mr X and asked him to complete these for a three-week period. They said they would then assess the contents and discuss the next steps, including possible proactive monitoring.
33. On 16 November, Mr X returned his completed noise diaries to the team.

November to December 2024: Mr X’s complaint about the investigation

34. Mr X was unhappy about the progress of the investigation and that the noise issues had still not been resolved. He complained about this to the Council.
35. The Council said in its complaint response:

• it partially upheld his complaint about delays investigating his complaint;
• the team were now reviewing the noise diaries and would be in touch about installing noise recording equipment. The recordings would then be reviewed; and
• property B was not a care home. It was a standard residential property let to tenants who required care and support to live in a community setting. It had been used for this purpose for some time, and before Mr X moved in.

36. Mr X disputed the Council’s description of property B. He said it wasn’t a standard residential property but operated as a business providing care and support services to its tenants.

January 2025: contact about installation of recording equipment

37. On 6 January the team contacted Mr X and arranged to install noise recording equipment on 15 January.
38. This appointment was postponed.
39. On 26 January the team contacted Mr X to arrange a new date.

February to March 2025: installation of recording equipment

40. On 4 February noise recording equipment was installed at Mr X’s home. The team’s records say it was intended to record the noise for a two-week period.
41. On 16 February Mr X told the team the equipment had stopped working. He did not receive any response.
42. On 12 March Mr X’s consultant contacted the team to discuss the next steps. He said the equipment had been switched off on 16 February (12 days after installation) although they had been told it would operate for two weeks and had still not been collected.

April 2025: collection of the equipment and progress of the investigation

43. On 1 April the noise recording equipment was collected from Mr X’s home. The team told him they would analyse the recordings and contact him by 8 April.
44. Mr X had not heard anything further by 8 April. He chased the team a number of times for an update.
45. On 24 April his consultant spoke to a team manager regarding concerns about the case handling and delays. They were advised a team member would be in touch.
46. They were also told about software issues preventing the team from listening to the recordings and that a solution had not yet been found.

May 2025: continued contact about software issues and complaint to us

47. Mr X continued to chase the team throughout May 2025 for an update about the review of the noise recordings.
48. He was told the software issues were ongoing and attempted fixes had not worked.
49. On 31 May the team told Mr X they were still working to resolve the software issues. They would provide a timeframe for the review of the recordings once these had been fixed.
50. In May 2025 Mr X brought his complaint about the Council’s handling of his noise complaint to us.

Events after May 2025

51. A team manager told Mr X in July 2025 the software issues had been resolved, and they could now listen to the recordings.
52. On 26 September the team told Mr X and his consultant they had listened to about 50% of the recordings. They set out details of what had been heard and the noise levels. They said the preliminary results showed this was unlikely to be a statutory nuisance because it did not meet the threshold for frequency, duration and volume.
53. The consultant asked the team to listen to the remaining recordings. On 12 November, they sent Mr X their report. This confirmed the results of the recordings did not meet the threshold for frequency, duration, volume and were within acceptable levels as set out in relevant British standards and world health organisation recommendations.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

54. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision made.
55. The Council explained to Mr X, and in its response to us, there are no specific licensing conditions imposed by the Council regarding the current use of property B as a supported living arrangement for vulnerable adults.
56. But it had a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate the potential statutory nuisance reported by Mr X – the noise from property B.
57. I have considered the way the Council carried out its investigation of Mr X’s noise complaint.
58. The Council has accepted, and I agree, there were delays in its investigation between June 2024 and May 2025.
59. I appreciate the Council’s suitably qualified officers make decisions about appropriate evidence for an assessment of whether noise complained about meets the threshold of statutory nuisance. They may decide it is not appropriate to install noise recording equipment to do this.
60. But here the team decided it would install noise recording equipment at Mr X’s home and, having done so, my view is it should have progressed this action promptly and without any avoidable delay.
61. There were a number of long unexplained gaps in contact with Mr X and action to progress the investigation. These include:

• 12 June to 27 August 2024: no communication
• 29 August to 11 October 2024: no communication
• 16 November 2024 to 6 January 2025: no response to Mr X’s noise diary
• 6 January to 4 February 2025: delay installing the recording equipment
• 16 February to 1 April 2025: delay collecting the recording equipment
• 1 April to end of April 2025: failure to update Mr X about the review of the recordings

62. I also note the team does not appear to have told Mr X about his right to take private action regarding an alleged statutory nuisance.
63. I accept the Council updated Mr X in May 2025 about the ongoing software issues. It told him the team could not listen to the recordings until these were resolved.
64. The Council has said, in response to our enquiries, the software issues prevented it from accessing an in-depth data analysis of the recordings, but it could have made a determination based on the recordings available when the equipment was collected. I have not seen any evidence of this in the team’s investigation records and it was not explained to Mr X at the time.
65. My view is the Council carried out a thorough investigation of Mr X’s noise complaint. But there were avoidable delays and communication failures by the Council in its investigation, and these failures were fault.
66. The delays and communication failures caused Mr X frustration at having to chase the Council for updates about progress and uncertainty about the outcome of the investigation.

Back to top

Action

67. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for the communication failures and avoidable delays in its investigation of his noise complaint and upset these caused. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
68. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. review its operations procedure for the investigation of noise complaints by Neighbourhood Services together with its service standards and timeframe for investigations and customer communication, including about the right to take private action;
2. review its system for monitoring investigation progress; and
3. ensure it appropriately updates relevant staff about any changes made.
69. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

70. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman