Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with and responded to her reports about her neighbour shooting an air rifle. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives next door to someone who uses an air rifle in their garden. She complains the Council:
1. failed to investigate her complaint about the noise from the neighbour’s shooting;
2. decided the noise was not a nuisance requiring further action without properly gathering and considering more information;
3. did not consider the impact of the noise on her daily life;
4. inappropriately suggested she approach her neighbour about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Ms X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
6. Councils with environmental health responsibilities have a duty to investigate noise complaints under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They may ask a complainant to submit a noise diary to allow officers to assess the type, level and timing of reported noise. Officers then decide whether further information is needed. They may use their powers to enforce against someone making a noise if they determine there is evidence it amounts to a statutory noise nuisance which can be proved in court. It is for officers to use their professional judgement to decide whether there is likely to be or has been a statutory noise nuisance. Councils’ enforcement powers are discretionary so there is no duty on them to use their powers in all cases.
7. Ms X made a noise diary on two log sheets and recorded video evidence in 2025 of her neighbour shooting their gun. She sent this information to the Council and an officer considered it. The officer noted the timings, duration and frequency of the noises. They determined the evidence did not show a level of noise nuisance which amounted to a statutory noise nuisance. Officers did not take further action to gather more information. Ms X mentioned how the noise affects her daily living because she spends much of the daytime at home, often working. The Council explained noise disturbing sleep at night-time would make it more likely to be a statutory nuisance under the legislation, as opposed to the noise Ms X had witnessed from her neighbour during the day.
8. We recognise Ms X considers the Council did not properly investigate and should have gathered more information about the noise. But there was no reported escalation in the level, duration and frequency of the noise, nor of it happening at more noise-sensitive times such as night-time, to warrant officers to collect more information. Based on the diary and video provided to them, officers determined that visits or other noise recordings would not alter their position that the noise would not amount to a statutory nuisance giving them grounds to use their enforcement powers.
9. Officers gathered and considered appropriate evidence about the noise to reach their decision, a professional judgement they were entitled to make. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify us investigating. We recognise Ms X disagrees with the Council's decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. We note Ms X considers it was unacceptable for the Council to suggest she speak to her neighbour about the noise. She believes it would not be safe for her to do so because the neighbour has an air rifle. Direct discussion between neighbours can alleviate or resolve noise issues. The Council would not know the relationship Ms X has with her neighbour and whether they could respectfully discuss the noise. It is a matter for Ms X whether she follows the Council’s suggestion as only she knows what she would and would not be comfortable doing. But it was not fault for the Council to make that suggestion.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman