Summary: Mr X complained the Council mishandled a long-running environmental health and anti-social behaviour case concerning his neighbour, and that one of its officers acted inappropriately. We found fault because the Council took too long to deal with Mr X’s reports and complaint, and because an officer shared information with him which should not have been disclosed. The Council has already taken action to address the officer’s conduct and agreed to make a symbolic payment for the avoidable uncertainty and frustration it caused Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council mishandled a long-running environmental health and anti-social behaviour (ASB) case concerning his neighbour. He said the Council’s officer acted inappropriately and shared information with him which should not have been disclosed, and that the Council delayed responding to his complaint. Mr X said these failings caused him and his family significant distress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. Mr X's concerns about his neighbour dated back to 2023. However, he did not complain to us until late 2025 and I have seen no good reason why he could not have done so sooner. I have therefore focused my investigation on events from January 2025 onwards, while taking earlier events into account for background and context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

Statutory nuisances

10. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential statutory nuisances. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence and assess factors such as the timing, duration and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
11. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence which can lead to prosecution.
12. Under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, councils have powers to require landowners or occupiers to take steps to prevent or remove conditions likely to attract or harbour rats and mice. This can include serving a notice requiring works to be completed within a specified timescale.

What happened

13. Mr X first reported concerns to the Council in 2023 about smells and pests at his neighbour’s property. During 2024 the Council carried out several visits to Mr X and the neighbouring property to investigate the concerns raised. In July 2024, the Council issued an abatement notice to Mr X’s neighbour about odours from the property.
14. In January 2025, the Council visited Mr X regarding his ongoing concerns about odours and vermin at his neighbour’s property. Between February and June 2025, the Council carried out further visits and inspections and considered whether the evidence justified additional enforcement action. Officers noted some odour during certain visits and continued to assess whether the evidence met the threshold for further action. It also provided Mr X’s neighbour with advice about pest control measures and issued a Prevention of Damage by Pests Act notice to them in April 2025.
15. In July 2025, Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He said that the investigation had gone on for too long and complained about the conduct of a Council officer. Mr X said that, in June 2025, the officer informed him about police involvement relating to a neighbour dispute and made comments about the possible causes of odour from the neighbour’s property.
16. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint in early August 2025. It accepted the case had remained open for too long without a clear conclusion. It apologised and said it would carry out further visits before deciding whether to close the case. The Council also said an officer had shared information which should not have been disclosed. It apologised, referred the matter through its data protection procedures and said it would address the issue with the officer.
17. Mr X requested a review of his complaint in early August 2025, which the Council acknowledged. Between August and November 2025, the Council continued to conduct visits to Mr X’s neighbour but found no evidence of a breach of the abatement notice. In October 2025 the Council issued a pest control advice leaflet to residents in the local area.
18. The Council sent its stage two complaint response to Mr X in November 2025. It again apologised for the officer's conduct and said it had investigated the matter and taken action with the member of staff concerned.
19. Also in November 2025, the Council found that the evidence relating to alleged odours and vermin at Mr X’s neighbour’s property did not justify further enforcement action and closed the case. By the time of my investigation, Mr X had moved away from the property and no longer lived next to the neighbour.

Analysis

20. Mr X complained the Council took too long to deal with his reports about smells and pests at his neighbour's property. The Council investigated the concerns raised and carried out visits and inspections. It monitored compliance with the abatement notice issued in 2024 and, in April 2025, took action under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act. The Council's records therefore show it took steps to investigate Mr X's concerns.
21. I appreciate Mr X would have preferred the Council to take stronger or different action against his neighbour. However, councils are entitled to exercise their professional judgement when deciding whether the evidence justifies further enforcement action. I have seen no evidence the Council failed to consider relevant information or reached its decisions without investigation. I found no fault in the way the Council decided what enforcement action to take, and I therefore cannot question the outcome of this decision.
22. However, there were delays in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s concerns. The Council's own complaint investigation found the matter had remained open for around 18 months without reaching a clear conclusion. It acknowledged this was unacceptable and that officers should have communicated more clearly about the intended next steps and timescales. While the Council did investigate the concerns raised, the case appears to have drifted for a prolonged period without a clear plan for bringing the investigation to a conclusion. This delay was fault and caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration.
23. The Council also delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint at stage two. He requested a review of his complaint in August 2025. Although the Council acknowledged the request promptly, it did not issue its final response until November 2025. The Council said this happened because of an administrative error and apologised to Mr X. This delay was fault which caused Mr X additional uncertainty and frustration.
24. The Council’s complaint investigation found that its officer shared information about Mr X's neighbour which should not have been disclosed, and that the officer should not have told Mr X about the police involvement in the way they did. The Council apologised, referred the matter through its data protection procedures and took action with the officer. On balance, I am satisfied the Council took appropriate action in response to this fault. However, the fault caused Mr X further uncertainty and frustration, and undermined his confidence in the Council’s handling of the case.
25. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and taken action to address the officer conduct issues. However, it has not offered a remedy to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration caused by the prolonged delay. I therefore recommended the Council make a symbolic payment to Mr X.
26. I considered whether the faults identified suggested a wider service failure. However, on balance, I have seen insufficient evidence this reflected a systemic problem. I therefore do not recommend any service improvements.

Back to top

Action

27. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr X, I recommend, within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay £300 to Mr X to recognise the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman