Summary: We will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint about how the Council has handled her noise complaints since 2023. Part of the complaint is late. There is not enough evidence of fault and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms Z complains about the Council’s response to her reports of noise from a neighbouring gym business since 2023. She says the noise disturbs her sleep, causes her stress, and worsens her medical conditions. She wants the Council to further investigate and address the noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Councils’ ‘statutory nuisance’ duties

5. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises.
6. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather and assess relevant evidence. This may include information from diary sheets completed by the complainant, noise-monitoring equipment, or site visits.
7. The law says 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 more sensitive to noise.

Ms Z’s case

8. Ms Z says the noise from a gym near her home has affected her since 2023. She says the noise affects her more because of her medical conditions.
9. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of her complaint in 2023. This is because this part of the complaint is late. If Ms Z was unhappy with its response at that time, I can see no good reason why she could not have approached us sooner.
10. Ms Z complained to the Council about the noise again in 2024. In 2025, Ms Z contacted the Council again to say she felt its handling of the noise nuisance was inadequate. She said the Council did not fully consider her medical conditions when investigating the noise, and it had not provided her with suitable information about noise monitoring equipment.
11. In its response, the Council acknowledged Ms Z’s reports of increased sensitivity to the noise. It explained the legal framework for statutory nuisance does not allow consideration of individual conditions and sensitivities. It said the law requires the Council to consider how the noise affects the average person.
12. The Council also outlined how it had investigated Ms Z’s concerns in 2024. These included visiting the gym, speaking to its management about minimising noise, and offering monitoring in Ms Z’s home. It said it did not take further action at the time because Ms Z said the noise reduced significantly after the Council’s investigations and reported no further nuisance until her complaint in 2025.
13. The Council apologised Ms Z felt she had not had enough information about the monitoring equipment. It said it was not aware of this issue until Ms Z’s 2025 complaint. The Council provided more information about the equipment in its response.
14. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has clearly explained how it investigated her complaint and why it did not take further action in 2024.
15. The Council has also offered Ms Z a suitable way forward if she wants it to investigate further. This is an appropriate response. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision-making process or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and it is unlikely we would achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman