Summary: The Council was at fault because it stalled its investigation into Mr X’s complaint of noise nuisance from early morning commercial waste lorries. This caused Mr X frustration and distress, and left him feeling ignored and dismissed. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate repeated reports of early-morning noise from industrial lorries near his home. He said the Council promised to visit to witness the noise but has not done so.
2. Mr X said the twice-weekly noise at 5.30am disturbs his sleep and wellbeing, and causes fatigue, stress and anxiety. He said the Council’s inaction caused frustration and distress, and left him feeling ignored and dismissed. Mr X said he has lost faith and trust in the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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)
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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Mr X complained to us about ongoing noise from early morning commercial waste collectors. He said this has been going on for years.
8. Mr X had a previous complaint with us that we upheld in December 2022. In this current case, Mr X complained to us in October 2025 about noise from March 2024 onwards.
9. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. I have found no good reasons for us to exercise our discretion and look back further than 12 months before Mr X complained to us.
10. Mr X told us that the early morning noise restarted in March 2025 after a period of quiet. For this reason, I have investigated from March 2025 to October 2025, when Mr X complained to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on earlier drafts of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
12. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

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

• noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street;
• smoke from premises;
• smells and fumes from industry, trade or business premises;
• artificial light from premises;
• insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises; and,
• accumulation of deposits on premises.

15. 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.

16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Councils can 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.

What happened

19. Mr X lives near some businesses. These businesses use commercial waste collectors.
20. For years, some of those waste collectors collected waste very early in the morning. After Mr X’s previous noise complaints, the Council wrote to the relevant waste collection firms, and instructed the businesses several times to secure informal arrangements to collect waste at 7am or later.
21. In April 2025, Mr X told the Council that early morning noise from these commercial waste collectors had restarted in March, after a period of quiet.
22. The Council sent letters to the businesses about it. At the same time, the Council sent Mr X observation sheets to record what time the collections were taking place.
23. In May, Mr X returned the completed observation sheets.
24. The Council visited the businesses and asked for their cooperation not to disturb residents’ sleep with waste collections before 7am.
25. In July, the Council told Mr X it had contacted all the businesses. It said the businesses had agreed with their waste collectors not to collect before 7am. The Council told Mr X it would arrange out of hours noise monitoring wherever possible. It asked Mr X to contact the Council if there were any breaches of the agreements.
26. Mr X complained to the Council. He said the noise stops for a short while after Council warnings, but it returns and the cycle starts again. He said the Council had failed to visit his home to witness the noise.
27. In August, Mr X sent the Council more noise observations.
28. Also in August, the Council sent its complaint response. It said its enforcement policy takes a graduated approach to enforcement. The Council explained that first it writes to the offending party to see if the problem can be resolved. Second, the Council issues warnings. Then, third, if the nuisance continues the Council will serve a notice. Failure to comply with a notice is an offence.
29. The Council said because there were a few years when the noise stopped, it had to start its process from scratch this time. It said it had to gather observation sheets and then witness the nuisance from Mr X’s property. It said after this, it could serve a notice. The Council said officers would arrange to visit Mr X’s property to witness the nuisance.
30. The Council then contacted Mr X asking for possible dates to visit his home and observe in the early morning.
31. In September, an internal Council email noted that it had not heard back from Mr X.
32. In October, the Council sent its second complaint response. It said it had tried to visit Mr X’s property but had not succeeded in arranging this. The Council accepted it could have done more to engage Mr X in the previous month.
33. The Council said it would get a named officer (Officer B) to contact Mr X “at least fortnightly” to ensure waste collectors complied with the informal agreement they agreed to. The Council said Officer B would continue do this for eight clear weeks after the last week Mr X reported noise.
34. A week later, Officer B emailed Mr X saying the Council would do its own early morning observation to see when collections started, do and its own observation sheets.
35. At the end of October, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

36. Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate repeated reports of early morning noise from industrial waste collection lorries near his home. He said the Council promised to visit to witness the noise but has not done so. Mr X said the Council promised action then he did not hear from it again.
37. I do not agree with Mr X that the Council failed to investigate. I am satisfied the Council took action to investigate his noise complaint. However, the Council’s complaint responses promised it would take action. The Council said:
• it would visit Mr X’s home to observe the noise; and,
• Officer B would contact Mr X “at least fortnightly”, and would continue to do this for eight weeks after he last reported noise.
38. The Council told the Ombudsman it did not visit Mr X, or witness the noise, or follow up with Mr X. The Council said it waited for Mr X to contact it. This is fault. This is made worse by the fact that these promises came after the Council said it could have done more to engage Mr X.
39. The Council recognised it should have:
• followed up with Mr X when it did not receive a response from him;
• actively sought clarification from Mr X;
• provided Mr X with further updates; and,
• ensured that it implemented the commitments it made (see paragraph 37).
40. I note that in 2022 we upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s noise complaint investigation. We found the Council had failed to visit Mr X to try and witness the noise, failed to review his observation sheets, delayed investigating his complaint, and failed to consider escalating to formal action when Mr X kept reporting that the waste collectors were not complying with the voluntary agreement.
41. I do not find the same fault now as we did in 2022. In this case, the Council investigated and took action in line with its policy. I do not find the Council at fault for the way it started investigating Mr X’s reports of noise. The Council accepted its investigation stalled, though, when it failed to follow up with Mr X and fulfil the commitments it made to him. This is fault.
42. I find the fault caused Mr X injustice: it caused him frustration and distress, and left him feeling ignored and dismissed. It is understandable that Mr X lost faith and trust in the Council.
43. The Council said it has learnt lessons from this complaint which it has shared with relevant staff. The Council said its learning emphasised the importance of:
• clear communication with complainants;
• effective case management;
• completion of agreed actions;
• regular review of dormant cases; and,
• maintaining ongoing communication during investigations.
44. I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken to learn from this complaint. For this reason, I do not consider it necessary to recommend service improvements.
45. The Council said if Mr X is still experiencing early-morning noise from waste collectors, he should contact the Council’s environmental health team. The Council said the team manager would directly supervise the case officer to ensure clear and timely correspondence. I understand the Council’s investigation is ongoing, so this action may not be necessary.

Back to top

Action

46. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X in writing for the injustice caused by the fault.
47. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making this apology.
48. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £200 to Mr X.
49. In arriving at this figure, I considered:
• our published guidance on remedies;
• the length of time involved;
• the action the Council took to investigate Mr X’s noise complaint;
• Mr X’s raised expectations when the Council promised action then failed to act; and,
• the impact this had on Mr X.
50. I find £200 is appropriate and proportionate to the level of injustice caused here.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman