Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a complaint about possible noise nuisance. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his reports of a possible noise nuisance from a property near to his house. He says the noise problems are causing disturbed sleep and affecting his wellbeing. He wants the Council to properly investigate and address the noise problems.

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), as amended, 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 the complainant 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. Mr X reported noise disturbances from a nearby property to the Council. It asked Mr X to fill in a diary. The Council then carried out a noise assessment in March 2025 and noise monitoring equipment was installed. It wrote to Mr X to inform him there was no evidence to support his report about a noise nuisance.
9. An officer visited the site in April 2025 and could not hear the noise Mr X complained about.
10. A senior officer visited Mr X again in November 2025. The officer said they could hear some noise in some but not all rooms of Mr X’s house. The officer said the noise was minimal.
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, noise monitoring equipment and site visits. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr 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.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman