Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council investigated and responded to his reports of a statutory nuisance from a nearby property. Mr X says the noise is affecting his enjoyment of his home. There was no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its decision on Mr X’s reports. The Council was at fault for delay and communication issues, causing frustration and uncertainty, but has taken sufficient action to address the resulting injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council investigated and responded to his reports of a statutory noise nuisance. Mr X says the Council delayed reaching an outcome since November 2023 and failed to properly understand the impact of the noise on him. As a result, Mr X says he lost the enjoyment of his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. We cannot usually investigate events that took place more than 12 months before a complaint was brought to the Ombudsman. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
8. As Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2025, anything that happened prior to October 2024 would be considered late. However, Mr X first reported alleged statutory nuisances to the Council in November 2023.
9. As the delay in bringing this complaint to us was due to the Council investigating the allegations, I have exercised discretion to look back to November 2023.
10. I have investigated how the Council considered Mr X’s reports of statutory nuisance from November 2023 up until it issued its final response to his complaint in October 2025.
11. Any mention below to events that took place before November 2023 or after October 2025 are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. 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

Relevant law and policy

14. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.

What happened

23. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
24. In November 2023, Mr X contacted the Council to report a noise nuisance from a property near to his home. Mr X said this had been going on for four weeks and appeared to be getting worse.
25. The Council sent an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to complete a site visit and discuss the situation with the landowner. The landowner confirmed they were waiting for an acoustic fence to be delivered but agreed to temporarily screen the property until this arrived.
26. Mr X contacted the Council again in December 2023. He explained the noise levels seemed to improve for a few weeks, but it was now causing a problem again. The Council contacted the landowner who told it the acoustic fence was due to arrive the next week.
27. The following week, the landowner confirmed the acoustic fence had been put up, and they had now acted to limit the times of the noise Mr X complained about.
28. In January 2024 the Council completed a site visit to satisfy itself the acoustic fence was up and assess how this had reduced the noise levels. The Council also emailed Mr X to ask if things had improved.
29. Mr X responded to explain things seemed to improve initially but the noise had increased again.
30. The Council contacted the landowner to discuss Mr X’s concerns and completed a site visit to monitor the noise. The Council witnessed noise still occurring despite the acoustic fence and the landowner agreed to put up a secondary fence as further mitigation.
31. The Council visited the site again in February 2024 to check on the works for the secondary fence. The Council also asked Mr X to keep logs of when the noise was particularly bad.
32. Throughout March 2024, the Council remained in contact with Mr X and the landowner about the noise. The Council noticed a period of reported increases in the noise and asked the landowner for an explanation on this.
33. In May 2024 the Council installed noise monitoring equipment at Mr X’s home and completed a site visit to assess the mitigation measures the landowner had taken so far.
34. The Council then wrote to Mr X in July 2024 to explain at that point it had not detected evidence of a statutory nuisance but said it would complete further noise monitoring that month.
35. In August 2024 the Council considered the results of its noise monitoring and compared the readings with Mr X’s logs. The Council decided there was not enough evidence to support service of an abatement notice or other enforcement action at that point.
36. The Council completed another site visit in September 2024. The landowner explained what steps they had taken to mitigate the noise. Notes from this visit show the Council encouraged the landowner to reduce the noise further where possible and asked it to fill any gaps in the acoustic fence. The landowner agreed to appoint a 3rd party noise consultant.
37. Mr X contacted the Council again in October 2024 to confirm he had experienced a particularly noisy night.
38. In February 2025, the Council completed another site visit. The Council considered the noise around the site, around Mr X’s home and around the general area. Notes show the Council identified noise could be heard the most around Mr X’s home but that it did not deem this to be at the level to be considered a statutory nuisance. The Council wrote to Mr X to confirm it had not witnessed evidence of a statutory nuisance but that it would continue to monitor this.
39. In April 2025 the Council completed another site visit. Again, the Council identified the presence of a noise but did not consider this was sufficient to be classed as a statutory nuisance.
40. In May 2025 the Council considered noise recordings that had been taken across the previous month. The Council identified the noise Mr X had complained about present throughout the period of recording, sometimes more prominently than others. However, it concluded there was no evidence the noise was at a level to be considered a statutory nuisance.
41. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment again, but again reached the conclusion there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance.
42. Following further discussions with Mr X and the landowner, in July 2025 the Council explained to the landowner that it had not yet identified evidence of a statutory nuisance but asked that they work to mitigate the noise where possible.
43. In July 2025, following another site visit, the Council wrote to Mr X to explain the evidence it had gathered throughout its investigation did not support the determination of a statutory noise nuisance and so it could not pursue enforcement action against the landowner.
44. Mr X complained to the Council, stating the noise complaint he raised in November 2023 still had not been resolved. Mr X said he felt the issue had not been properly investigated and communication had been poor. Mr X said the Council appeared to focus on loudness rather than frequency and duration and he felt the investigation was not independent as it should have been.
45. Responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged the investigation had been open for longer than it would typically expect, however it said this was because it had tried to obtain the necessary evidence to support further intervention. The Council said it could not act without robust evidence that a statutory nuisance was occurring but, having considered all factors, it was unable to do so in Mr X’s case. The Council explained it had been independent in its investigation and had also tried to work with the landowner to address the noise Mr X was experiencing. The Council acknowledged there had been some communication issues through the process and apologised for this.
46. The Council also provided Mr X with information about how he could take his own action under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act.

Analysis

47. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to consider whether a statutory nuisance has occurred. Rather, we look at the process the Council followed to make its own decision. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with it.
48. When the Council received reports from Mr X, it acted on them by asking him to keep a record of the noise, installing noise monitoring equipment, carrying out site visits and engaging with the landowner.
49. The Council reviewed the evidence it gathered, including the noise monitoring reports, but decided there was not enough evidence of a statutory nuisance to would allow it to take enforcement action. I understand Mr X disagrees with this, but as the Council followed the right process to reach its decision, I cannot find it at fault.
50. Mr X has said the noise levels seemed to reduce at the times when noise monitoring equipment was installed and questions whether the landowner was aware of monitoring in advance. Mr X also raised questions about the way the Council completed noise monitoring and the positioning of the equipment. I can understand Mr X’s frustration but I have seen no evidence to suggest fault with the process the Council followed.
51. I find the Council has also followed good practice in advising Mr X of his private right of action under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act.
52. However, there was delay in the Council concluding its investigation. Mr X first reported issues in November 2023, but it was almost two years before the Council gave its final view. This is a significant delay and amounts to fault. However, the delay appears to be down to the Council attempting to work with the landowner informally in order to improve the situation for Mr X and as this would not impact on the overall outcome, I find any resulting injustice would be minimal.
53. I also find the Council at fault for the way it communicated with Mr X throughout the process. I have not seen a comprehensive catalogue of communication between Mr X and the Council, but the information I have seen shows Mr X had to frequently chase the Council for updates. This amounts to fault and would have caused frustration and uncertainty for Mr X. However, in its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council acknowledged and apologised for this, and I find that to be sufficient action to recognise the injustice caused.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find no fault with the process the Council followed to respond to Mr X’s reports of alleged statutory noise nuisance. I find fault with the way the Council communicated with Mr X and for delay, but I find the Council has already acted to address the resulting injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman