Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly respond to Mrs X’s reports of noise nuisance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not investigate her noise complaint sufficiently and used outdated practices to collect information. She said this led to continuing noise for eight months which caused a decline in her mental health and added cost and inconvenience as she could not work from home. She wanted the Council to visit her property to explain what would happen differently in a new noise complaint; for the Council to review its Noise Policy and confirm that staff training has taken place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on councils to investigate reports of nuisance and to take reasonable steps to investigate any complaints of statutory nuisance that it receives. However, the Council may consider that a nuisance is not being caused.
6. Mrs X complained to the Council about noise nuisance from bird scarer devices running in fields near her home.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said it had carried out multiple visits to Mrs X’s property to assess the noise nuisance. It also said it asked Mrs X to complete noise diaries and offered to install noise monitoring equipment at Mrs X’s property. The Council said it had liaised with the landowner who had then adjusted how the bird scarer devices worked. The Council visited Mrs X’s property after the landowner’s adjustments and decided the noise from the bird scarers was not a statutory nuisance.
8. The Council told Mrs X how she could pursue private action against the landowner responsible for the noise.
9. Mrs X asked that a Council staff member visit her property to explain what would happen with a new noise complaint. In its complaint response, the Council explained if issues with the bird scarer devises arose in the future, Mrs X could raise a new noise complaint. The Council would then consider whether the noise met the threshold of a statutory nuisance.
10. In its complaint response, the Council identified some areas where it could learn from Mrs X’s complaint. It recommended an advice sheet on bird scarers, additional training for the Environmental Protection Team, and an update to the Council’s Noise Policy. In response to our enquiries, the Council advised training on statutory nuisance had taken place. It said the guidance on bird scarers and an updated Noise Policy were due to be published in 2026.
11. We cannot overrule the Council’s decision on whether or not to take action. It isn’t our role to say whether the noise that someone is complaining about is a nuisance in law or whether action must be taken to reduce it. Only a qualified officer can decide if there is a statutory nuisance.
12. The Council visited Mrs X and the landowner to consider the reported noise nuisance. It set out why it did not regard the noise from the devices to be a statutory nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman