Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about noise and odour from a bakery. This is because we could not add to the response the Council has already provided.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains of an inadequate response by the Council to his complaints of suffering nuisance due to noise and odours from a bakery.
2. Mr X wants the Council to cease the nuisance from the bakery including changing its extraction system. He also wants an apology and compensation of £5,000 for the distress and impact on his living conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with his concerns about noise and odours from a bakery. He says he has been caused distress, cannot open his windows and his living conditions have been adversely affected.
8. The Council apologised for a lost opportunity to progress the matter in July 2025 and apologised for its oversight. But overall, it found officers had subsequently investigated effectively including by carrying out site visits in July and September 2025.
9. The Council said there was no evidence to pursue formal enforcement action concerning a grille in the bakery’s extraction system. However, it said the criteria for statutory nuisance had been met to justify an abatement notice being served on the bakery in October 2025.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action to address the issues raised in Mr X’s complaint including issuing an apology for its delayed action and there is nothing further, we would add or recommend were we to investigate.
12. I should also add it is open to Mr X to take his own action under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in the county court against the bakery if he remains dissatisfied.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the response the Council has already provided.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman