Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly investigate her report of noise nuisance. We find the Council at fault for failing to follow its noise complaint policy and not completing an adequate investigation into Miss X’s report. This caused significant uncertainty and frustration. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, investigate the report correctly, and complete an organisation led improvement plan.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not properly investigate a report of noise nuisance she made to its Environmental Services Team in December 2024.
2. She said the noise has breached her right to quietly enjoy her home and had a huge effect on her mental health.
3. She would like the Council to allocate a named officer from its Environmental Services Team to properly investigate and provide an outcome to her report of noise nuisance she made in December 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss 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

Relevant Law

9. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
10. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include:

• noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.

11. 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.

12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
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.
17. Under section 82 of the EPA, complainants also have the right to approach the magistrates’ court directly and apply for an abatement order. This process does not involve the council, and the court will instead consider the complainant’s evidence itself and decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
18. The Council’s noise complaint policy
19. The Council explains how it deals with noise complaints on its website. It says it will first discuss the complaint with the complainant.
20. It says it will then gather evidence of the noise from the complainant. This can be done via diary sheets or a mobile phone app that the complainant can use to upload recordings of the noise.
21. The investigating officer will then review the evidence and decide whether to investigate further.
22. If the investigating officer decides the evidence does not demonstrate that the noise is likely to be a statutory nuisance, they shall inform the complainant and the case will normally be closed.
23. If, after review, the decision is made to investigate further, the investigating officer will advise the complainant on the next steps. The policy describes a general investigation process it usually follows. It says the complainant will be kept informed of progress throughout the process by a named officer.

What happened

24. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
25. In December 2024 Miss X made a noise nuisance report to the Council. She complained about noise from equipment used by a nearby business.
26. Later in December, Miss X made a formal complaint because she had not heard from the Council.
27. An officer from the Council’s Environmental Services Team then contacted Miss X. They provided instructions on how to use the mobile phone app to upload recordings of the noise.
28. Miss X used the mobile phone app to make and upload recordings of the noise. She uploaded more than 20 recordings during late December 2024 and early January 2025.
29. On 9 January the Council emailed Miss X. It was about her complaint the Council had not contacted her. It noted she had spoken to a Council officer, and that the officer was planning to visit the business.
30. On 28 April 2025 an officer from the Environmental Services Team contacted Miss X. They said they could clearly hear a noise in the recordings she had uploaded. They asked Miss X to send some new recordings. They said they would listen to them and contact Miss X once they had decided on the next steps.
31. Miss X used the mobile phone app to make and upload recordings again. She uploaded another five recordings throughout May.
32. Also in May the Council’s Environmental Services Team passed information about the business and noise to its Planning Enforcement Team. The Planning Enforcement Team visited the business. It identified possible planning issues in relation to the equipment that was making the noise.
33. On 26 and 30 May Miss X emailed the Council’s Environmental Services Team. She said she could not sleep because of the noise. She said she needed a final answer from the Council about her noise nuisance report.
34. On 2 June the Council’s Environmental Services Team emailed Miss X. It said its Planning Enforcement Team was investigating potential breaches of planning control. The Planning Enforcement Team also contacted Miss X. It explained how it would investigate the breach of planning.
35. Miss X continued to use the mobile phone app to make and upload recordings of the noise. She uploaded more than 20 more recordings throughout June.
36. Miss X complained to us at the end of August. She uploaded more recordings of the noise in September.
37. The business got planning permission for the equipment in 2026. Miss X said the noise nuisance is ongoing.

Analysis and findings

38. I acknowledge the Council investigated and resolved the breach of planning control associated with Miss X’s complaint.
39. However, Miss X’s complaint was primarily regarding noise nuisance. It was not a complaint about planning.
40. For that reason I have decided the Council had a duty to investigate a potential statutory nuisance. It should have fulfilled its duty by following its noise complaint policy. In doing so it should have told Miss X whether she was suffering from a statutory nuisance and taken the appropriate action.
41. Miss X used the mobile phone app to make and upload more than 50 recordings of noise between 24 December 2024 and 29 September 2025.
42. During that period, on 28 April 2025, the Environmental Services Team told Miss X it had heard noise on the recordings. It said it would consider any new recordings made and tell her what its next steps were.
43. This shows the Council had reached the stage in its noise complaint policy summarised in paragraph 23 above. The policy says it will tell the complainant the next steps and describes the Council’s usual investigation process. It also says the complainant will be kept informed of progress throughout the process by a named officer.
44. I have seen no evidence the Council told Miss X its next steps, followed its usual noise nuisance investigation process, or kept her informed of progress throughout by a named officer. For these reasons I find the Council failed to follow its noise complaint policy. I also find it failed to fulfil its duty to take reasonable steps to investigate a potential statutory nuisance. This was fault.
45. The fault left Miss X not knowing what, if any, action the Council’s Environmental Services Team was taking about the noise. I find this caused significant injustice in the form of uncertainty and frustration.
46. I acknowledge the Council’s Environmental Services Team checked its case records. It said its last contact with Miss X was 3 June 2025, did not receive any further complaints from Miss X, and so assumed the issue had been resolved. I have decided the evidence shows, on the balance of probabilities, the Council’s case records are wrong. This is because Miss X continued uploading recordings of the noise after that date.

Remedying the injustice

47. I have considered our Guidance on Remedies regarding the injustice caused to Miss X.
48. The Council should apologise for the injustice caused.
49. I have considered a symbolic payment for loss of amenity. I have decided I cannot say, even on balance of probabilities, whether the noise was a statutory nuisance. For that reason I cannot find whether a properly conducted investigation would have addressed the matter sooner. I therefore cannot recommend a symbolic payment for loss of amenity.
50. However, I find the significant amount of time that has passed since Miss X first reported the noise means the uncertainty and frustration she has suffered warrants a symbolic payment at the upper end of the scale for distress.
51. The Council should also investigate her report of noise nuisance correctly. It should reach a decision on whether there is a statutory noise nuisance as soon as practicable, and no longer than eight weeks from the date of this decision.
52. I also make a service improvement recommendation to prevent future injustice to others. I have decided it is unclear why the Council did not properly follow its noise complaint policy and has inaccurate case records of Miss X’s continuing reports. For these reasons I have decided to recommend an organisation led improvement plan to identify the issues that led to the fault, and put steps in place to fix them.

Back to top

Action

53. Within four weeks of the date of my final decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Miss X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £400 to Miss X to remedy the injustice.
54. Within eight weeks the Council will:
1. Investigate Miss X’s report of noise nuisance correctly. It should have regard to the evidence she has submitted and its own noise complaint policy. It should allocate a named officer, keep Miss X updated on progress, and reach a decision on whether there is a statutory noise nuisance.
55. Within twelve weeks the Council will:
1. Identify the issues that led to the Council’s failures to properly follow its noise complaint policy, and record Miss X’s further recordings of noise nuisance in its case record. Provide a written improvement plan that explains its steps to fix the issues.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

57. I find the Council at fault for not properly investigating a report of noise nuisance that caused injustice of uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman