Summary: We have not found fault in the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports about ice-cream traders operating near his home. The Council considered the concerns raised, took action under its street trading policy, and reached decisions it was entitled to make. We recognise Mr X’s concerns about the impact on Y are genuine, but the evidence does not show fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not taken appropriate action in response to repeated reports about nuisance from ice-cream vans operating near his home. He says multiple traders visit the street each day, park unlawfully, obstruct the highway and use their chimes in a way that causes significant distress to his son. Mr X says this has had a serious impact on his son’s wellbeing. Mr X also complains the Council did not properly respond to a further complaint about an incident in which a trader allegedly verbally abused his wife and filmed their property. He remains dissatisfied with the Council’s responses at Stage 1 and Stage 2 of its complaints procedure and with its overall handling of his concerns.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports about ice-cream traders operating near his home, up to and including its final complaint response in May 2025. I have also considered relevant evidence provided during this investigation, where it helps me understand what the Council knew, what action it took, and how it reached its decisions.
5. Since the Council’s final complaint response, Mr X has provided further correspondence about continuing ice-cream van activity and later contact with the Council, his MP, senior officers and Children’s Services. This includes later reports of trader activity, concerns about safeguarding, equality duties, alleged further incidents involving traders, and correspondence about whether the Council should take additional operational steps while this investigation is ongoing.
6. I have considered that information insofar as it provides background and context. However, the scope of my investigation is limited to the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports up to and including its final complaint response in May 2025. I have not investigated the Council’s handling of new incidents, later reports, or later requests for action after that date.
7. I also do not consider it proportionate to extend this investigation into a continuing review of all later correspondence and trader activity. The core issue in this complaint is whether the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports, and the decisions it reached by the time of its final complaint response, were administratively sound. Later events may show the problem has continued, but that does not by itself show fault in the Council’s earlier handling of the matter.
8. Some of Mr X’s later correspondence repeats concerns already considered in this investigation. For example, he remains concerned the Council has not used its powers to restrict traders from operating near his home, and that it has not given sufficient weight to the impact on Y. I have considered those issues within the scope of this decision. However, where Mr X raises new allegations about later Council actions, later safeguarding contact, later trader incidents, or later responses to his MP, I have not made findings on those matters.
9. This does not prevent Mr X from making a further complaint to the Council if he considers it has failed to respond properly to new evidence or incidents arising after its final complaint response. It also does not prevent the Council from considering further action if it receives new evidence of breaches of the street trading policy.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Street trading

12. The Council regulates street trading under Schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Its street trading policy says all streets in the Council’s area are either consent streets or prohibited streets. Anyone who wants to trade on a consent street must have a valid street trading consent.
13. The Council may attach conditions to a street trading consent to ensure trading is carried out appropriately. Its policy says each application or enforcement action will be considered on its own merits.
14. The policy says the Council may attach conditions to prevent obstruction of the street, danger to people using it, or nuisance or annoyance to people using the street or otherwise. Conditions attached to a consent must be complied with at all times. Failure to comply may result in the consent being revoked or not renewed.

Enforcement

15. The Council’s street trading policy says it will actively enforce street trading legislation, including through routine checks and monitoring, to ensure compliance with street trading conditions.
16. The policy says if a consent holder fails to comply with the street trading conditions, the consent may be revoked and the holder may be liable to prosecution. If the Council decides to refuse or revoke a street trading consent, it must notify the applicant or consent holder and give reasons for its decision.

Ice-cream van chimes

17. The Council referred to the Code of Practice on Noise from Ice Cream Van Chimes Etc. in England 2013. The Council used this when assessing whether traders’ chimes complied with the expected volume and use requirements.
18. The Code sets restrictions on the use of ice-cream van chimes, including when chimes may be sounded, how long they may be sounded for, how often they may be sounded, sounding chimes while stationary, and maximum permitted volume.

Human rights

19. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects the right to respect for private and family life and the home. Councils may need to balance a person’s rights against the rights and interests of others when deciding what action is proportionate.

Equality duties

20. The Equality Act 2010 includes the Public Sector Equality Duty. This requires councils, when exercising their functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. This does not require a council to achieve a particular outcome, but it must properly consider relevant equality impacts when making decisions.

Back to top

What happened

21. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
22. Mr X lives near an area regularly visited by mobile ice-cream traders. His son, Y, is autistic and has ADHD. Mr X says Y is highly sensitive to noise.
23. From spring 2024 onwards, the Council received reports from local councillors and residents about ice-cream traders operating near Mr X’s home. The concerns included frequent visits, loud chimes, parking on double yellow lines, driving on pavements and obstructing the highway.
24. In early 2025, Mr X contacted the Council directly. He said the number of ice-cream vans visiting the area and the use of chimes were causing significant distress to Y. The Council discussed the permitted use of chimes with Mr X and gave him contact details so he could report alleged breaches by traders.
25. Around the same period, the Council received further reports from other residents about the frequency of visits and trader behaviour.
26. In early April 2025, Council officers and lead members met to discuss the issues in the area. The discussion included the street trading policy, parking enforcement, possible alternative locations for traders and planned chime assessments.
27. Mr X then made a formal complaint to the Council. He said the Council had failed to take effective action despite repeated reports. He said ice-cream traders were visiting the area frequently, using chimes, parking unlawfully and causing serious distress to Y.
28. The Council responded at Stage 1 in mid-April 2025. It said Regulatory Services took a phased approach to enforcement and had reminded traders of their street trading conditions. It said the same trader could not return to the same location within an hour, but the policy did not prevent different traders visiting the same location. It also said parking enforcement was difficult because commercial vehicles were entitled to a five-minute observation period before a penalty charge notice could be issued. The Council partially upheld the complaint and said it would arrange chime assessments and write to relevant traders reminding them of their responsibilities.
29. Mr X remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint. He said the Stage 1 response had not properly addressed the impact on Y or the continuing nature of the problem. He also raised concerns about a specific trader’s behaviour, including alleged verbal abuse.
30. In late April and May 2025, the Council carried out chime assessments of ice-cream vans operating in the city. It also wrote to traders who had been the subject of repeated complaints, warning them about repeat visits, parking, chime use and conduct.
31. Around this time, Mr X provided the Council with doorbell footage of an altercation involving a trader and a resident. The Council says it discussed the matter with Greater Manchester Police.
32. The Council sent its Stage 2 response in late May 2025. It said it had spoken to relevant officers in Environmental Health, Parking Services and Legal Services, as well as Greater Manchester Police. It said it had liaised with ice-cream traders, tested and adjusted chimes, provided written guidance, checked plates were displayed and reminded traders to act considerately. It said it had also written again to traders operating in Mr X’s area after further reports from residents.
33. The Council said it had considered Mr X’s concerns about Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. It said Article 8 was a qualified right and had to be balanced with the rights and interests of others, including residents and businesses. It said it considered it had taken appropriate and proportionate steps, but would continue to monitor the situation and review its position if new evidence was received.
34. The Council also said it recognised Y appeared to be overwhelmed by the sounds and chimes because of his neurodivergent conditions, which it accepted was distressing. However, it did not consider this amounted to harassment.
35. The Council said it had spoken to and warned the trader Mr X complained about. It said Greater Manchester Police was aware of the incident but was not taking further action. It said if further evidence showed that a trader was causing nuisance or annoyance, it would consider further action under the street trading policy, including suspension or revocation of street trading consent. The Council partially upheld the Stage 2 complaint.
36. After the Stage 2 response, the Council received further reports about trader behaviour in the area. It contacted at least one trader again and asked the councillor reporting the matter to provide time and date stamped evidence to help it consider further action. The Council later carried out a joint Environmental Health and Trading Standards visit to locations including Mr X’s road. It said officers did not see any ice-cream traders during that visit.

Enquiries

37. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note:
38. The Council does not accept there had been fault or injustice. It said it responded to reports, monitored the location and acted in line with its street trading policy and available enforcement powers.
39. The Council said it considered formal enforcement action, including suspension or revocation of street trading consent. However, it said senior officers reviewed the evidence and decided there was insufficient evidence of breaches by any individual trader to justify stronger action.
40. The Council said it considered proportionality by weighing the nature and frequency of the reports against the evidence available and the steps it had already taken. It said it had used less intrusive measures first, including reminders, conversations, written guidance and warning letters.
41. The Council said it had no data showing the number or frequency of trader visits to Mr X’s road. It said compliance with the rule about not returning to the same location within an hour depended on complaints and supporting evidence, including dates and times. It said it had not received evidence showing the same trader had returned within an hour.
42. The Council said parking enforcement attended the area as part of its mobile enforcement regime. It said officers had not witnessed ice-cream vans parking in contravention and had only issued one penalty charge notice to a private vehicle. It said pavement driving, obstruction and unsafe vehicle movement were mainly matters for the police rather than civil parking enforcement.
43. The Council said it considered Mr X’s Article 8 concerns. It said Article 8 is a qualified right and must be balanced with the interests of traders, who hold street trading consents and are entitled to operate if they do so lawfully and in line with the policy and code of conduct.
44. The Council said it dealt with the complaint about alleged verbal abuse and filming as part of the Stage 2 process. It said it contacted Greater Manchester Police, discussed the matter with the trader, reviewed the video Mr X provided, and decided there was insufficient evidence to take further action.

Back to top

Analysis

45. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether ice-cream traders should be prohibited from trading on Mr X’s road, or direct the Council to take enforcement action against a particular trader. Those are decisions for the Council to make, using its professional judgement and relevant enforcement powers. My role is to consider whether the Council properly considered Mr X’s reports, took account of relevant information, followed its policies, and reached decisions that were evidence-based and proportionate.
46. In considering this complaint, I have therefore focused on whether the Council’s response was administratively reasonable. I have also considered whether the Council properly considered the impact on Y, given what Mr X told it about Y’s autism, ADHD and sensitivity to noise.

The Council’s response to reports about ice-cream traders

47. Mr X complains the Council did not take effective action in response to repeated reports about ice-cream traders operating near his home. He says traders visited the area frequently, used chimes, parked inconsiderately, obstructed the highway and caused nuisance to residents.
48. The evidence shows the Council did take action in response to the concerns raised. It contacted traders operating in the area, reminded them of the street trading conditions, arranged chime assessments for ice-cream vans operating in the city, and wrote to traders who had been the subject of repeated complaints. The Council’s records show 19 vehicles were assessed. Of those, 14 were initially non-compliant with the chime volume requirement, 12 had their volume adjusted during the assessment, and two required further adjustment and retesting. Traders were also reminded about the proper use of chimes and the conditions of their street trading consent.
49. I have considered Mr X’s point that the number of initially non-compliant chimes showed widespread non-compliance. However, the fact many chimes were initially non-compliant does not itself show fault, because the Council identified the non-compliance and took steps to correct it.
50. The Council’s warning letters to traders were specific. They reminded traders not to return to the same location within an hour, to avoid returning to the same areas multiple times per day, to avoid trading immediately after another trader had left, not to obstruct the highway or footpath, not to drive or park on the footpath, not to park on double yellow lines, and not to block driveways. The letters also reminded traders of the Code of Practice on chime use and said their activities must not cause nuisance or annoyance to the public.
51. The Council also told traders it could direct them not to operate from a particular location, or not to operate from a location at particular times. It warned that failure to comply with the street trading policy conditions could lead to further action.
52. Mr X says the Council failed to consider using Condition 30 of its street trading conditions, which allows it to direct that a trader must not operate from a particular location or must not operate there at certain times. I have considered this point. The evidence shows the Council was aware of this power, as it referred to it in its warning letters to traders. However, the Council decided the evidence did not justify imposing location-specific restrictions on individual traders at that stage. It reached that view because it did not have sufficient evidence of breaches by specific traders. I am satisfied that was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
53. I accept Mr X’s point that the impact on his household was cumulative and was not limited to the conduct of one trader. However, the Council had to act within its street trading framework, which regulates individual consent holders. The Council responded to the cumulative concerns by warning traders to avoid returning repeatedly to the same area and to avoid trading immediately after another trader had left. I do not consider the Council was required to introduce a more extensive monitoring system before deciding whether formal action was justified.
54. I recognise Mr X considers the Council should have gone further, including by preventing traders from operating near his home. However, the Council had to decide whether any stronger or more restrictive action was justified by the evidence. The evidence available showed repeated concerns about trader behaviour, but the Council did not consider it had sufficient evidence of breaches by an individual trader to justify formal action. That was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
55. The Council also considered whether it would be proportionate to prohibit ice-cream traders from the road. Its legal advice was that, while Article 8 rights were relevant, these had to be balanced against the interests of traders who held street trading consents and were entitled to operate if they complied with the policy and code of conduct. The advice was that prohibiting traders from the road would not be proportionate at that stage.
56. There is evidence the Council considered the reports, reminded traders of the relevant conditions, tested and adjusted chimes, issued written warnings, and considered whether stronger enforcement action was justified. I am satisfied the Council’s response to the reports about ice-cream traders was administratively reasonable. I do not find fault in this part of the complaint.

Consideration of the impact on Y

57. Mr X told the Council Y is autistic, has ADHD and is highly sensitive to noise. He said the frequency of ice-cream van visits and the use of chimes caused Y significant distress. I recognise this is the central issue for Mr X. He considers the Council has not given sufficient weight to the impact on Y and has prioritised traders’ ability to operate over his family’s ability to enjoy their home.
58. The Council did not dismiss the impact on Y. In its Stage 2 response, it acknowledged Y appeared to be overwhelmed by the sounds and chimes because of his neurodivergent conditions, and that this was distressing. However, it did not accept the traders’ actions amounted to harassment. It said harassment would usually involve a course of conduct that made someone feel harassed, threatened or intimidated, normally with an intention to do so.
59. The Council also considered Mr X’s argument that the situation breached Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The Council took legal advice. The advice said Article 8 is a qualified right and the Council had to balance Mr X and Y’s rights against the interests of traders who held street trading consents and were entitled to operate if they did so lawfully and in line with the policy and code of conduct.
60. I understand why Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view. The impact he describes on Y is serious. However, the Council was not required to give automatic priority to Mr X and Y’s position over the traders’ interests. It had to consider the competing interests and decide what action was proportionate.
61. The evidence shows the Council did take Y’s circumstances into account when deciding what to do. It sought legal advice, considered whether prohibiting traders from the road would be proportionate, and decided it would not be proportionate at that stage. It also took practical steps which were capable of reducing the impact on residents, including testing and adjusting chimes, reminding traders about chime use, and warning traders about frequency of visits, parking and nuisance.
62. The Council could have explained its consideration of Y’s disability-related impact more clearly, particularly in relation to the Equality Act. Its response to my enquiries did not identify a separate written Equality Act assessment. However, the evidence shows the Council was aware of Y’s autism and noise sensitivity, treated this as a relevant consideration, and considered whether further restrictions on traders would be proportionate. I therefore do not consider the absence of a separate Equality Act assessment, by itself, amounts to fault in this case.
63. In response to my draft decision, Mr X said the Council should have carried out a structured Equality Act or Public Sector Equality Duty assessment. I have considered this point. I do not consider it necessary or proportionate to investigate the wider adequacy of the Council’s street trading policy in this complaint. My investigation concerns how the Council responded to Mr X’s reports. The evidence shows the Council was aware of Y’s autism and noise sensitivity, treated this as relevant, and considered whether further restrictions on traders would be proportionate. While a clearer written record would have been preferable, I do not consider the absence of a separate written assessment is enough to show the Council failed to have due regard to Y’s circumstances.
64. I am satisfied the Council considered the impact on Y, considered Mr X’s Article 8 argument, and reached a view it was entitled to reach. I do not find fault in this part of the complaint.

The incident involving the trader and Mrs X

65. Mr X also complains the Council did not properly respond to an incident in which a trader allegedly verbally abused Mrs X and filmed or photographed the family’s property. Mr X says Mrs X felt intimidated by the incident and by the trader’s continued presence near their home.
66. The Council did not register this as a separate complaint. It considered the issue as part of its Stage 2 complaint response. In doing so, it reviewed the video footage Mr X provided, shared the matter with Environmental Health and discussed the incident with Greater Manchester Police.
67. The Council’s records show Greater Manchester Police contacted the Council about reports of issues with ice-cream vendors in the area, including an allegation that at least one vendor had been verbally abusive to residents. The police asked whether the Council was aware of the issues and whether it had powers to address them. The Council then shared relevant information with the police as part of its Stage 2 investigation.
68. The Council also took legal advice about the direct complaint against the trader. The advice said a possible way forward would be to issue a warning about the trader’s conduct and keep this on file. The Council says it spoke to the trader and warned him about his alleged behaviour. It also noted the trader had made counter-allegations about the behaviour of some residents.
69. In response to my draft decision, Mr X said the Council did not contact him again before reaching its view. However, the Council had his account and the video evidence he provided. It also considered information from Greater Manchester Police and the trader. I do not consider further contact with Mr X was necessary before it reached its decision.
70. I understand Mr X wanted the Council to treat this as a separate complaint and take stronger action against the trader. However, the key question is whether the Council made reasonable enquiries and reached a decision that was open to it on the evidence available. The evidence shows the Council considered the video, involved Environmental Health, liaised with Greater Manchester Police, considered the trader’s account, and warned the trader about his conduct. The Council was entitled to decide there was insufficient evidence to take further formal action.
71. The Council could have been clearer in explaining to Mr X that it had considered this issue within the Stage 2 complaint rather than registering it as a separate complaint. However, I do not consider this amounts to a finding a fault, or caused a significant injustice. The Council did consider the substance of the issue and told Mr X the outcome.
72. I recognise Mr X’s concern about the impact on Y is genuine and significant. The evidence shows he has consistently explained that Y’s autism, ADHD and sensitivity to noise make the situation particularly distressing for him. I do not doubt that Mr X is seeking to protect Y’s wellbeing. However, the fact the situation is distressing for Y does not, by itself, mean there is fault by the Council. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied the Council considered the concerns raised, took action under its street trading policy, and reached decisions it was entitled to make. I have not found fault.

Back to top

Decision

73. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault in the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports about ice-cream traders operating near his home.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman