Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly cancelled its investigation into his report of statutory nuisances and had poor complaint handling. We find the Council wrongly cancelled its investigation when it did not follow a relevant policy, and failed to promptly restart it despite saying it would. This caused significant injustice of uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and provide guidance to relevant staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled its decision to cancel its investigation into his reports of statutory nuisances caused by a neighbour. In particular he complains the Council:
1. Decided to cancel its investigation based on a false accusation that he was aggressive and bullying.
2. Incorrectly said his reports about plants and household waste were not statutory nuisances.
3. Had poor complaint handling when it wrongly stated there were multiple distressing phone calls, and failed to reinstate its investigation despite saying it would.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused significant distress at a particularly upsetting period, prolonged the nuisances he was suffering from and meant he could not work from home.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated from 22 August 2025, when Mr X first reported the matters to the Council. I have investigated until 3 December 2025 when the Council provided its final complaint response.
8. Mr X raised complaints about the Council’s actions and decisions that happened after he complained to us. I have not investigated new matters beyond 3 December 2025 because the law says the Council should usually be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate matters before we do. I have seen no reason to exercise my discretion to investigate those matters in this case.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr 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

Law and policy

Statutory nuisances

11. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.

Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

18. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.
19. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.

The Council’s Managed Contact Policy

20. The Council’s Managed Contact Policy sets out its approach to customers whose actions or behaviours it considers to be unacceptable or unreasonably persistent.
21. The Council considers unacceptable or unreasonably persistent customer conduct to include behaviours that may cause staff distress, harm or harassment. It gives examples including:

• Threats
• Rudeness
• Shouting
• Demanding responses within unreasonable timescales

22. The policy has two stages:

• Stage 1 is a warning and monitoring period. The Council sends a letter that explains special measures that apply for a stated period.
• Stage 2 is a managed contact business case. The Council may move straight to stage 2.

23. There is no right of appeal but the customer will be advised of the outcome after the monitoring period ends or following a scheduled review of the managed business case.

What happened

24. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
25. On 22 August 2025 Mr X first reported the nuisances.
26. On 26 August the Council sent him diary sheets. It asked him to complete the sheets and explain how the issue was affecting him.
27. Mr X replied the same day. He asked the Council for information including the typical timeline of investigations.
28. On 11 September Mr X emailed the Council. He provided completed diary sheets and explained the negative impact of the nuisance. He requested the Council take immediate legal action on various points.
29. On 12 September the Council emailed Mr X. It confirmed it had received his diary sheets. It had allocated his case to an officer. It said the officer would contact him in due course.
30. on 26 September Mr X emailed the Council and chased up his report. He complained the Council had not provided a timeline. He reiterated immediate action was required. He said if he did not receive a response within two working days he would escalate matters.
31. On 30 September Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. It was about its lack of response. He gave a 48 hour deadline for the Council to take immediate action. He said he was considering legal action against the Council and other actions.
32. On 7 October Mr X had a telephone conversation with the Council officer investigating his report. He said it was purely about the logistics of installing noise monitoring equipment. He said the officer explained noise monitoring equipment would be installed on 6 November. Mr X said the conversation was short and had no elements that could be described as distressing.
33. Mr X emailed the Council officer on the same day. He asked questions about the investigation. He asked for written confirmation that the noise monitoring equipment would be installed on 6 November, and other matters.
34. On 16 October Mr X emailed the Council. He complained nobody had replied to his last email. He complained there had been a complete breakdown in communication. He told the Council his father had recently died. He said he would escalate the matter to us at the Ombudsman if the Council did not respond within one day.
35. A senior officer from the Council replied to Mr X the same day. An email exchange followed. The Council said it considered Mr X’s previous email had been aggressive and bullying. Mr X explained why he disagreed and reiterated concerns about a lack of contact and outstanding queries. The exchange concluded with the Council saying it had cancelled its investigation.
36. Also on 16 October the Council sent Mr X a stage one complaint response. It was in response to his complaint of 30 September. It found there had not been excessive delays or a lack of written communication. It answered some of Mr X’s other queries.
37. Mr X made a further complaint to the Council about its decision to cancel its investigation into the nuisances he had reported. He said it was an abuse of power and retaliation.
38. The Council replied on 20 November. It said Council officers had felt emotionally distressed after phone conversations with Mr X. It acknowledged factors had unfortunately led to tensions and misunderstanding on both sides. It apologised for its part in that. It did not uphold his complaint. However it reinstated its investigation.
39. On 25 November Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the complaint process.
40. The Council replied on 3 December. It acknowledged an error in its previous response in which “phone conversations” were referred to, despite only one conversation happening. It found the remainder of the previous response dealt with Mr X’s concerns in a balanced and clear way. It reiterated it had reinstated its investigation.
41. The Council subsequently contacted Mr X and said it would install noise monitoring equipment in his property. It did so in February 2026.

Analysis and findings

42. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.
43. The amount of information provided by Mr X was considerable. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
44. I address each part of Mr X’s complaint in order below.

The Council decided to cancel its investigation based on a false accusation that he was aggressive and bullying

45. Based on the evidence I have seen I find, on the balance of probabilities, the Council genuinely felt elements of Mr X’s contact were verbose and adversarial and therefore aggressive and bullying. I therefore do not find it made a false accusation.
46. However, I find the Council’s concerns about Mr X’s contact clearly fell within the scope of its Managed Contact Policy. It therefore should have responded by following its Managed Contact Policy, not by cancelling its investigation. It failed to do so. In particular, it failed to provide Mr X adequately clear special measures that would apply to his conduct, a monitoring period for that conduct, and I have seen no evidence its response was written in consultation with the Senior Information Governance Officer as required by the policy. This was fault. The fault caused significant injustice to Mr X in the form of uncertainty and frustration.
47. I acknowledge the Council said its decision to cancel its investigation was to protect the health, safety and welfare of its staff. That does not change my finding. This is because I have decided action under the Managed Complaint Policy was the appropriate way to provide protection from emails it considered verbose and adversarial.

The Council incorrectly said his reports about plants and household waste were not statutory nuisances

48. The Council decided these matters were not potential statutory nuisances based only on the initial information Mr X provided. It therefore decided not to investigate them. It explained the reasons in its stage one complaint response dated 16 October.
49. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s explanation for its decisions. I have decided a suitably qualified officer considered the issues. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide these matters were not potential statutory nuisances and not investigate them further. I therefore do not find it at fault for this part of Mr X’s complaint.

The Council had poor complaint handling

50. The Council acknowledged it wrongly referred to multiple phone calls in one of its complaint responses. It apologised. I find, on the balance of probabilities, the error was not intentional. I have also seen no evidence it affected the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s broader complaint. For these reasons I have decided the reference to multiple calls does not amount to fault.
51. The Council formally told Mr X it had reinstated its investigation into his report of statutory nuisance twice. It did so in its formal complaint responses of November and December 2025. However, It did not take any further steps to investigate until it contacted Mr X to arrange noise monitoring equipment in February 2026. This was about three months later.
52. I find this was a significant and unacceptable delay. This was fault. It caused significant injustice to Mr X in the form of uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble.

Remedies for the injustice

53. I have considered our Guidance on Remedies. I have decided to recommend the Council apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice.
54. I have also decided to make service improvement recommendations to prevent future injustice from the same faults.

Back to top

Action

55. Within four weeks of the date of my final decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by its failure to use its Managed Contact Policy, and for its significant delay in reinstating its investigation after it said it would. 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 £150 to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice.
56. Within eight weeks the Council will:
1. Provide guidance to relevant staff to ensure they understand the Managed Contact Policy and the importance of promptly implementing agreed outcomes in formal complaint responses.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. I find fault causing injustice regarding the Council’s decision to cancel its investigations instead of using the relevant policy and poor complaint handling. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman