Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to respond to Miss X’s reports of a neighbour’s barking dog. That caused Miss X uncertainty, frustration and added to her distress. The Council agreed to make a payment to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed dealing with her complaint about dog noise which meant its investigation was unnecessarily delayed. She said the Council accepted it had made a mistake but would not rectify it.
2. Miss X said the Council’s inaction increased her distress. She said the noise disturbed her sleep which affected her ability to work. Miss X said it affected her mental health and wellbeing, and she was left feeling helpless.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Noise nuisance

7. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

The Council’s procedure about noise from barking dogs

11. The Council’s noise nuisance policy says its dog warden initially deals with complaints about dogs barking. It says the dog warden has three working days to deal with the initial complaint.
12. The policy says the dog warden will contact the dog owner with advice and leaflets. At the same time, the dog warden will tell the complainant not to report any more instances of dog barking for a specified period of time (can be up to three weeks). This allows time for the dog owner to put the advice into practice.
13. If the complainant reports more instances of noise nuisance, the Council can decide what to do next. This could be, for example, giving the complainant a number to call out-of-hours to log noise incidents, or issuing noise monitoring equipment.

What happened

14. In early 2025, Miss X contacted the dog warden twice in five weeks about a neighbour’s barking dog. Three months later, Miss X complained. She said she had no response from the dog warden. She said she wanted noise monitoring equipment so the Council could take action.
15. The Council issued Miss X with an out-of-hours number to call to log a noise incident. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for not responding to Miss X’s emails. It said Miss X was on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment. It said the wait time was up to four months.

Analysis

16. Miss X complained the Council delayed dealing with her complaint about dog noise which meant its investigation was unnecessarily delayed. She said the Council accepted it had made a mistake but would not rectify it. Miss X wanted the Council to put her at the top of the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment.
17. Miss X emailed the dog warden about the barking dog noise early in 2025. The dog warden should have responded to Miss X’s first complaint within three working days. She emailed the dog warden again, five weeks later. The dog warden did not respond to either of Miss X’s emails. This is fault.
18. I find this fault caused Miss X uncertainty, frustration and it unnecessarily added to her distress. This is injustice.
19. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it was at fault. It apologised.
20. Miss X said she would have been on the list for noise monitoring equipment at the right time if the dog warden had responded to her emails, or if she could have reported the noise directly to the Council’s noise team.
21. The Council said it would not have put Miss X on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment at her first contact with the dog warden. It said it would have tried the out-of-hours system first.
22. I cannot say for certain that Miss X would have been on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment earlier if the dog warden had responded in good time. This is because the Council put Miss X on the waiting list at the same time it gave her the out-of-hours number. This is not usually its procedure. I therefore cannot make a finding that the Council’s initial delay caused a delay to Miss X being put on the waiting list.
23. Regarding Miss X’s point that she would have been on the list for noise monitoring equipment at the right time if she could have reported the noise directly to the Council’s noise team, I do not agree. According to the Council’s noise nuisance procedure, complaints about barking dogs are dealt with in the first instance by the dog warden. The Council is entitled to say this in its policy. Therefore, I cannot find that Miss X would have been on the waiting list earlier if she could have contacted the noise team directly.
24. The Council began dealing with Miss X’s noise complaint four months late. However, once this process started, I find the Council followed the process set out in its policy. It issued Miss X with the out-of-hours number and put her on the waiting list for the noise monitoring equipment.
25. Miss X complained that despite accepting fault, the Council did nothing about it. I do not agree. The Council said it discussed failure to respond to Miss X’s emails with the dog warden directly. Within a short time of Miss X’s formal complaint, the Council had issued her with the out-of-hours number and had put her on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment. As I said above, I cannot say for certain when the Council would have put Miss X on the waiting list if the dog warden had responded when they should have.
26. Miss X said the Council should have put her at the top of the waiting list when it responded to her complaint. I do not agree. I am satisfied the Council took appropriate action when it became aware of Miss X’s noise complaint to avoid further delay to its investigation.

Back to top

Action

27. I am satisfied the Council has apologised. For this reason, I will not ask the Council to apologise again.
28. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £200 to Miss X. This is to remedy the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused by failing to respond to her noise complaint in the first instance.
29. In arriving at this amount, I considered our published guidance on remedies. I considered the level of injustice and the length of delay. I find that £200 is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the level of injustice caused.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman