Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's handling of her reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring business since 2024. We found the Council failed to take reasonable steps to investigate whether the reported noise amounted to a statutory nuisance, did not follow its own noise nuisance procedure, failed to reach a decision on whether a statutory nuisance existed, and communicated poorly with Miss X, including in its complaint handling. These faults caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty, frustration, and time and trouble pursuing the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment to Miss X, complete its investigation, and take action to improve its handling of future noise nuisance complaints.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly investigate and take appropriate action in response to her repeated reports of noise nuisance since 2024.
2. She says the ongoing noise has significantly affected her and her family’s ability to sleep and enjoy their home normally.

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. 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.
5. 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

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

Statutory nuisances

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.

Abatement notices

15. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay issuing an abatement notice for a short period, to try to address the problem informally.
16. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.

Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

17. 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.
18. 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 procedure on noise nuisance

19. The Council's published procedure for investigating complaints about loud music states that, on receipt of a complaint, it will write to the person alleged to be causing the noise and ask them to reduce the volume. It will also ask the complainant to complete diary sheets recording the noise and its impact over a period of days or weeks, depending on how often the noise occurs.
20. If complaints continue and the information provided suggests the noise may be unreasonable and capable of amounting to a noise nuisance, the Council will normally issue an informal notice to the person responsible.
21. If the problem persists, the Council says it will seek to witness the noise from the complainant's property. Where officers are satisfied a nuisance exists, the Council can then serve a notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requiring the person responsible to stop causing the nuisance.
22. Where such a notice is breached and the breach is witnessed by an officer, the Council will normally consider formal enforcement action, including prosecution.

What happened

23. Miss X lives in a property above commercial premises. She has lived there for many years. Before the events complained about, the premises below were occupied by another business which closed at approximately 10:30pm.
24. In 2023, a new business took over the premises and obtained a premises licence permitting the sale of alcohol and the playing of recorded music. Later that year it successfully applied to vary the licence so that recorded music could continue until 3:00am rather than 12:30am.
25. In late 2023, the business opened to the public.
26. In March 2024, Miss X reported excessive noise and loud music, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. She said the noise regularly continued until around 3:00am, disturbed the sleep of residents living above the premises and had continued despite discussions with the owner. She provided a recording of the noise.
27. The Council acknowledged the report and allocated it to an officer. It explained it no longer operated an out-of-hours noise service and therefore could not attend during late-night periods to witness the noise. However, it said it would make enquiries with the business and hoped an initial visit and engagement with management would resolve the issue.
28. An officer attended the premises during the daytime but found them closed. The officer later spoke with a director of the business and provided advice about managing noise levels.
29. The Council also visited Miss X. The officer advised that the business appeared willing to cooperate. Following discussions with management, the officer advised that speaker positioning may be contributing to noise transmission into neighbouring properties.
30. Shortly afterwards, Miss X reported that the problem continued and provided a further recording made during the early hours of a Sunday morning. The Council did not respond.
31. In April, Miss X again reported continuing disturbance and explained that requests made directly to the owner to reduce the volume had not resolved matters. She submitted a further recording.
32. The Council listened to the recording and contacted the business. It suggested the business purchase a noise limiter the Council could then set. However, it did not update Miss X.
33. In June 2024, Miss X again contacted the Council, offering to provide further recordings. She received no response.
34. Later that month, Miss X submitted a formal complaint about the Council's handling of the matter and requested effective action to investigate and resolve the ongoing noise.
35. Internal records show the Council raised the issue again with the business and noted that it may recommend a noise limiter if further complaints were received. However, it did not provide a substantive response to Miss X.
36. Between October and November 2024, Miss X repeatedly chased both her complaint and the underlying noise reports. She received no substantive response.
37. In November 2024, Miss X sought assistance from her local councillor. She explained that despite making repeated reports and a formal complaint, she had received little communication from the Council and although she had repeatedly tried to resolve matters directly with the owner, she had seen no improvement.
38. Following the councillor's intervention, the Council again contacted the business and advised them to buy a noise limiter. The owner said they had identified possible weaknesses in the sound insulation and intended to undertake further soundproofing works next year. The owner also stated they were willing to work with both neighbours and the Council to address concerns.
39. In January 2025, the Council informed Miss X that soundproofing works would shortly begin and that a noise limiter would be installed afterwards.
40. Miss X responded expressing frustration that, almost a year after her first report, the issue remained unresolved. She provided a further recording. The Council did not reply.
41. Later that month, Miss X requested an update regarding installation of the noise limiter. She received no response.
42. In February, Miss X again contacted the Council seeking an update and expressing concern that the disturbance remained ongoing.
43. In March, the Council advised that soundproofing works had been completed and said it would encourage the business to obtain a noise limiter. Miss X asked that this be progressed urgently.
44. Later that month, she again sought assistance from her councillor because of continuing delays.
45. Following this, an officer visited the premises. The business indicated it would purchase a noise limiter, which would then be calibrated by the Council from within Miss X's property. The Council updated Miss X accordingly.
46. In May, Miss X submitted a further noise complaint, which the Council added to the existing case.
47. In September, Miss X again reported concerns and requested installation of the noise limiter. The Council explained that it could recommend, but not require, installation of a noise limiter. It also reiterated that it was limited because it no longer operated an out-of-hours noise service.
48. During internal correspondence, a manager questioned whether enforcement action could be considered without officers directly witnessing the noise, but nothing was progressed.
49. In November, Miss X contacted the Mayor regarding her continuing concerns.
50. The Council again encouraged the business to purchase a noise limiter, and the owner agreed to do so.
51. Miss X continued to contact the Council seeking progress.
52. The noise limiter was delivered in January 2026.
53. In June, the Council attended to calibrate the noise limiter but discovered it had not yet been installed.
54. In response to my enquires, the Council confirmed that:
• it had not reached a decision on whether the reported noise amounted to a statutory nuisance;
• it considered installation of a noise limiter to be the most appropriate way of addressing the issue;
• it had not provided diary sheets or alternative evidence-gathering measures to Miss X;
• no warning letters had been sent to the business despite the Council's published procedure;
• it had not offered Miss X use of its newer ad-hoc monitoring arrangements;
• it could not confirm whether Miss X's June 2024 complaint had been answered;
• it considered the business had generally cooperated with requests to address the issue; and
• no further noise complaints had been received since August 2025, so it considers the noise limiter to have been successful.

My findings

Noise complaints

55. When Miss X reported ongoing late-night noise from commercial premises beneath her home, the Council had a duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take reasonable steps to investigate whether a statutory nuisance existed.
56. The Council took some initial steps. It visited Miss X, contacted the business and discussed possible measures to reduce noise transmission. These were reasonable initial actions.
57. However, when Miss X reported that the problem continued, the Council did not progress its investigation in accordance with either its statutory duties or its own published procedure. This was fault.
58. The Council's procedure states that complainants will be asked to complete diary sheets and that further investigative steps will be taken if complaints persist. There is no evidence the Council provided diary sheets or followed this process.
59. The Council has confirmed it did not send warning letters to the business, despite this being the first step identified within its own procedure. Nor is there evidence it departed from the procedure for a reasoned purpose. This was fault.
60. The Council repeatedly relied on the fact that it no longer operated an out-of-hours service. While this may have limited one method of gathering evidence, it did not remove the Council's duty to investigate. There is no requirement for officers personally to witness noise before a council can decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
61. Councils may gather evidence in a variety of ways, including diary records, recordings, monitoring equipment, site visits and professional assessment of the evidence available. The Council failed to adequately consider or pursue these alternative methods. This was fault.
62. Miss X repeatedly provided recordings and detailed reports over an extended period. The Council considered some of this information but did not undertake any assessment of the evidence and did not reach a formal view on whether a statutory nuisance existed.
63. Most significantly, more than two years after the first reports, the Council still had not decided whether the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance. The purpose of an investigation is not simply to gather information or suggest informal remedies, but to enable the Council to determine whether a statutory nuisance exists and, if so, what action should be taken. More than two years after Miss X first reported the matter, the Council has confirmed it still has not made that decision. This was fault.
64. The Council's failure to reach a decision meant the case remained in an indefinite state. As a result, Miss X was left without either the protection that may have followed a finding of statutory nuisance or a reasoned explanation as to why the legal threshold had not been met. This prolonged uncertainty represents a significant injustice.
65. Instead, the Council focused almost exclusively on encouraging the business to purchase a noise limiter. Informal resolution can be an appropriate approach. However, where complaints persist for an extended period, a council must still investigate sufficiently to determine whether formal action is required. The Council failed to do so.
66. There were also significant delays in progressing the proposed noise limiter. The Council first suggested this measure in April 2024. By June 2026 it had still not been installed and calibrated. The Council did not take adequate steps to monitor progress or bring matters to a conclusion. This was fault.
67. I am also concerned by inconsistencies in the Council's understanding of the case. The Council told me that no further complaints had been received after August 2025 and that the noise limiter had been successful. The evidence shows Miss X continued to raise concerns after that date, and the limiter had not been installed. This suggests the Council did not maintain adequate oversight of the case.
68. I cannot now determine, even on the balance of probabilities, whether the reported noise amounted to a statutory nuisance. That is because the Council failed to complete the investigation necessary to reach that conclusion. This uncertainty is itself a significant injustice to Miss X.
69. Had the Council properly investigated the matter when concerns were first raised, it may have been able either to take enforcement action or to provide Miss X with a reasoned decision explaining why enforcement action was not justified. Because it failed to do so, Miss X has been left with prolonged uncertainty, frustration and distress.

Communication and complaint handling

70. The Council repeatedly failed to respond to Miss X's correspondence, updates and requests for information. This was fault.
71. The Council has been unable to demonstrate it responded to Miss X's June 2024 complaint. This was fault and represented a missed opportunity to review the handling of the case at an earlier stage.
72. These communication failures caused Miss X avoidable time and trouble in repeatedly pursuing responses and contributed to her uncertainty about what action, if any, the Council was taking.

Back to top

Action

73. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• Pay Miss X a total of £700, made up of:
1. £400 to recognise the distress and significant uncertainty caused by the Council's failure to properly investigate the reported noise and reach a decision on whether a statutory nuisance existed; and
2. £300 to recognise the time and trouble, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council's poor communication and complaint handling.
74. Within three months, the Council has agreed to:
• Arrange a visit to the premises, in conjunction with the owner, to ensure the noise limiter is installed and calibrated if it remains an appropriate mitigation measure.
• Complete its investigation into Miss X's reports of noise and reach a formal decision on whether the reported noise amounts to a statutory nuisance.
• Review its procedures for investigating noise nuisance complaints and produce an action plan setting out how it will ensure officers properly investigate, assess evidence and reach timely decisions on potential statutory nuisances in future.
75. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman