Summary: Mr D says the Council’s noise investigation has been inadequate. I have not found fault with the noise investigation, however the Council failed to reply to some queries from Mr D. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to investigate his reports about noise at a neighbouring property in line with procedures and that Officers were not available to witness any incidents.

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’. 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. 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

5. I have considered events covering the 12 month period up to when Mr D received his final stage complaint response from the Council (June 2024 to 24 June 2025).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

8. In 2024 Mr D reported noisy construction work, at a neighbouring property, to the Council. The Environmental Health Team opened a case and began to investigate under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA). In May the Council served the owner with a section 60 Notice (Notice) to limit the hours during which construction noise could take place, works should end by 1pm on a Saturday and no works were permitted on Sundays or bank holidays. The Council advised Mr D that if there was a breach of the Notice an Officer would need to witness it in person at the boundary line of the property.

Events I have investigated

9. On 5 October Mr D contacted the Council reporting further noise and asking for an Officer to visit. On 8 October the Council replied that it did not have an out of hours service so an Officer would have to attend at weekends on their own time. It said an Officer would need to witness any alleged breach of the Notice. On 12 October Mr D asked how the Council was monitoring the Notice and could other measures, such as using his video evidence, be applied to the case.
10. On 14 October (a Saturday) Mr D notified the Case Officer noise was happening at the site after 1pm. The Council says the Case Officer picked up the message on Monday. On 18 October the Case Officer advised Mr D they could visit on the last weekend of October. Mr D replied on 20 October that he hoped the Case Officer could attend on 26 October. On 25 October Mr D again asked the Case Officer to visit the next day. On 26 October the Council says the Case Officer remained available to visit but did not hear from Mr D as to whether noise was happening so no visit took place. Also around the end of October the Case Officer contacted the alleged perpetrator to advise them a breach of Notice letter would be issued if they witnessed non-compliance with the Notice.
11. On 18 November Mr D reported further noise to the Council occurring outside the times permitted. He asked what action the Council could take. I have no record of the Council replying. On 7 December (a Saturday) the Case Officer contacted Mr D asking if the builders were on site as the noise must be heard from the boundary line. Mr D replied that noise would not be enough to witness from the boundary line. He asked what could be done to assist him. On 30 December (a Saturday) Mr D messaged the Case Officer that builders were working after 1pm and could someone attend. I have no record of the Council responding, the Council says an Officer may not have been available that day.
12. On 11 January 2025 (a Saturday) Mr D sent a text message and email to the Case Officer asking them to attend because noise was audible from the boundary line. On the following Saturday, 18 January, the Case Officer emailed Mr D they were available that day to visit. Mr D did not request they attend the site. Mr D reported further noise to the Council mid-February but the Case Officer received the message the Monday after the noise had occurred.
13. On 1 March (a Saturday) the Case Officer messaged Mr D there needed to be an agreement for an Officer to attend the site outside office hours. The Case Officer was available that day. They visited the site in the afternoon and stood outside the property for around 20 minutes, they did not witness a breach of the Notice. The Case Officer updated Mr D about the visit on 12 March.
14. On 14 March Mr D asked the Case Officer if any other Team could assist with statutory nuisance. The Case Officer replied on 19 March explaining the Council were dealing with the case under COPA legislation as this was most relevant to the noise being reported, it was different to statutory noise nuisance. The Case Officer also advised Mr D they were going on leave but would ask a colleague to be available for weekend visits. On 21 March the Case Officer told Mr D a colleague would contact him on Saturday 22 March. An Officer called Mr D the next day, Mr D said the noise had stopped for the day. The next Saturday the Officer called Mr D again and was told the noise had stopped at 1.30pm.
15. On 14 April Mr D emailed the Case Officer, he wanted the Council’s legal team to review the case for escalation to formal enforcement. Mr D asked the Council to respond on 29 April. On 30 April the Case Officer replied to Mr D. They explained the legislation relevant to the case and that an Officer needed to witness a breach of the Notice.
16. On 6 May Mr D submitted a formal complaint to the Council. It was wrong to say an Officer had to witness a breach of the Notice and it had failed to log and consider his evidence. The Council replied on 20 May. It set out a timeline for the case and explained it had investigated under COPA rather than treating as a statutory nuisance, this was appropriate because of the type of nuisance reported. Prosecution was a last resort in the enforcement process and required compelling and credible evidence of a failure to comply with the Notice. The Council needed “direct observations, witness testimony, documentary evidence and potentially technical monitoring data”. Without firsthand evidence from an Officer who had witnessed a breach any formal prosecution would be unlikely to succeed. The Council considered evidence from residents but had to corroborate with its own first hand evidence. It did not find any fault in its handling of the case. Mr D asked the Council to escalate his complaint.
17. On 24 June the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It said it had not disregarded Mr D’s evidence, but it had to be satisfied “beyond all reasonable doubt” there had been a breach of the Notice. It explained its enforcement policy and confirmed that Mr D’s evidence had been added to the case file and would be considered further if the threshold for formal action was achieved.

What should have happened

18. When the Council receives reports about noise causing a nuisance it will allocate the case to a Case Officer to investigate. The Case Officer will determine the type of noise being complained about, if the noise relates to construction works it can be dealt with under COPA legislation. The Council may serve a section 60 Notice to control the hours works take place. If a resident reports the Notice is not being adhered to the Council requires an authorised Officer to witness a breach to satisfy the evidentiary threshold for formal enforcement action. That allows the Officer to provide firsthand testimony in court. An Officer needs to witness a breach of the Notice from the boundary line of the property.
19. The Council does not have on ‘out of hours’ noise service. Case Officers will attend a site at the request of a resident if they are available. The Council says Officers put themselves ‘on call’ when available so they can attend a site if they receive a request on the day from the resident.

Was there fault by the Council

20. The Council has correctly explained its process to Mr D in respect of how it investigates construction noise and why an Officer is required to witness a breach of a Notice before progressing the case to court. I have not seen evidence to show the Council has discounted or failed to consider the information Mr D has provided, rather it has clearly advised him from the serving of the Notice onwards that it would need to witness a breach.
21. There have been times when Mr D asked the Council about the investigation process and not received a reply (including the end of October 2024, 18 November and 7 December). Mr D had to wait until 19 March 2025 to have a reply to some of his questions and did not receive a comprehensive response until his complaint was dealt with in May. I would expect the Council to reply to questions from a client on an active investigation and where it does not do so I consider that to be fault.
22. The Council does not have an ‘out of hours’ noise service but it does have Officers on call where available. In this case I can see there were 10 Saturdays in total where a visit was either offered or requested. Out of those there were six occasions when the Council had an Officer on call: there were five Saturdays where a visit was not carried out (either because Mr D did not request one on the day or he told Officers the noise had stopped); one visit was conducted where a breach was not witnessed. There were four times when Mr D requested a visit on the day, but no Officer was available. That shows me that whilst the Council’s resources are limited it does still offer a reasonable opportunity for Officers to be available and visit a site given that on six out of ten Saturdays the Council had an Officer on call.
23. I appreciate that Mr D does not agree with the decisions made by the Council in his case and that he feels further enforcement action should have been taken. 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. In this case the Council has adhered to its procedures and correctly informed Mr D about the type of evidence it needs and the reasons for that.

Did the fault cause an injustice

24. Mr D did not have some questions about his case responded to in 2024. He only received a comprehensive explanation after he lodged a formal complaint in 2025. I consider the failure to reply to his questions meant Mr D was subject to some time and trouble.

Back to top

Action

25. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr D the Council has agreed to issue an apology letter. It will also remind Officers about responding to valid questions from clients during a COPA investigation.
26. The Council should carry out the remedy within four weeks of this investigation ending.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find some evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman