Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of noise reports. Part of the complaint is late and further investigation of the remaining matters is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has failed to deal properly with long‑standing noise from a nearby refrigeration unit and other local businesses. He says the noise affects his sleep and quality of life and wants the Council to take enforcement action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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)

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. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils must investigate noise complaints but can only take enforcement action where they are satisfied a statutory nuisance exists.
8. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather and assess relevant evidence.
9. 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.
10. The law says a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person.
11. Mr X says he has had issues with noise disturbance from nearby business premises for the last 10 years. We normally expect people to complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of a matter, but Mr X did not complain until December 2025. We can therefore only consider the Council’s handling of his noise complaints in the 12 months prior to Mr X’s complaint to us.
12. Since December 2024, Mr X submitted two complaints to the Council about noise from local businesses.
13. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaints and investigated in line with legislation and policy. Officers visited and assessed the noise and determined it was not a statutory nuisance. The Council also offered to visit Mr X’s home to assess the noise from inside the property. In addition, it considered Mr X’s query about planning permission and confirmed a refrigeration unit installed at a nearby business does not require planning permission and is lawful.
14. Although Mr X strongly disagrees with the Council’s conclusions, the evidence shows it followed the correct process and applied the relevant legal test. Officers used their professional judgment to decide there was no statutory nuisance, this is decision it was entitled to make.
15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we cannot question if a council’s decision is right or wrong if there was no fault in the way the decision was reached.
16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Councils actions or decision-making.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late, and further investigation of the remaining matters is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman