Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to reports of possible noise nuisance and disrepair at a neighbouring property. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not properly investigate her reports of possible noise nuisance and disrepair from a neighbouring property. She said the noise had prevented her from sleeping. She wanted the Council to act in response to the noise and disrepair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance can include noise from premises.
7. 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.
8. Mrs X complained to the Council in April 2025 about noise from a neighbouring property.
9. In its complaint response, the Council said it had considered Mrs X’s reports of noise disturbances in April to May 2025. It said it asked Mrs X in June 2025 to continue to record further noise incidents, and report them to the Council. The Council said it did not receive any further reports from Mrs X until January 2026.
10. The Council said it continued to investigate the noise reports in January 2026. Noise monitoring equipment was installed at Mrs X’s property. The Council reviewed audio-recordings from the property and decided the noise did not constitute a statutory nuisance. It wrote to Mrs X to inform her of its decision.
11. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding there was not a statutory noise nuisance. The Council gathered evidence through diary logs and noise monitoring equipment. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mrs X’s concerns and it is entitled to use its professional judgment to decide if a statutory nuisance exists. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached the decision and I therefore cannot criticise its decision.
12. Mrs X also complained about waste in her neighbour’s garden.
13. In its complaint response, the Council told Mrs X that rubbish had been removed from the neighbour’s garden.
14. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council told Mrs X that rubbish had been removed from the neighbouring garden.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman