Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of noise nuisance. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action against a noisy neighbour who has been previously considered to be committing statutory nuisance by excessive shouting. She wants the Council to take further action following the issue of an abatement notice in 2025.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says her neighbour has caused disturbance to her everyday life by excessive shouting and noise within the property. Her neighbour is a social housing tenant. She complained tot the Council and in 2025 the Council served an abatement notice specifically to control the shouting which had been witnessed by a Council officer.
7. Ms X says the neighbour has continued on occasions to breach the order by shouting. The Council has carried out further investigation but it does not consider that the witnessed noise would be a breach of the abatement notice terms. Ms X says the Council has not accepted evidence recorded by a Ring doorbell and that it has insisted it must be presented in a specific form on the noise app or witnessed by officers.
8. The Council says that the notice remains in force but any evidence of a breach would require sufficient evidence to convince a magistrates court that a criminal penalty was required. Such action would give the perpetrator a right to challenge the evidence in a higher court.
9. We will to investigate this complaint. The Council has shown that it is prepared to take action in this case and that the matter is ongoing as the notice is still in force.
10. Ms X complained about the tenant breaching their tenancy agreement and in particular there is a strong smell of cannabis from the site. She says the Council were aware of the tenants’ history of anti-social behaviour and should have taken possession action years ago. We cannot investigate these matters because the neighbour is a social housing tenant and we have no jurisdiction to consider complaints about the management of social housing.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of noise nuisance. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman