Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of its investigation into his reports of a light nuisance. He also complained about how it responded to his complaint about a neighbour’s parked vehicle. We find the Council at fault for failing to serve an abatement notice when it had identified a statutory light nuisance. It was also at fault for poor complaint handling and communication. This has caused Mr X significant frustration and distress, and he has spent considerable time and trouble trying to resolve the situation. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy to Mr X, and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his complaint about his neighbour’s light shining into his home, which he believes constitutes a light nuisance. He also complained about the Council’s handling of his reports of dangerous parking on the road near his home. Mr X also says the Council’s communication and complaint handling was poor.
2. Mr X says this situation has caused him and his wife stress and anxiety and has affected their ability to enjoy their home. He has spent significant time and trouble trying to resolve the issue and wants the Council to investigate further.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
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 was aware of some of the matters complained of in 2023, but he did not refer his complaint to us until April 2025. However, I have exercised discretion to investigate events before April 2024 as Mr X was not aware his case had been closed in March 2024, and the Council did not communicate this to him until August 2024. The Council did not issue its stage two complaint response until March 2025.

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

10. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
11. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include:

• noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street;
• smoke from premises;
• smells and fumes from industry, trade or business premises;
• artificial light from premises;
• insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises; and
• accumulation of deposits on premises.

12. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

13. 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. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
14. 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.
15. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

Abatement notices

16. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay issuing an abatement notice for a short period, to try to address the problem informally.
17. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.

What happened

18. This is an overview of events and is not intended to detail everything that happened.
19. In September 2023, Mr X complained to the Council about motion activated lighting which his neighbour had installed outside their property. He explained the light was activated frequently and shone brightly into his property which impacted his ability to enjoy his home and disturbed him and his wife throughout the night. He said he had to close his curtains in the late afternoon during the winter months to stop his living room being unusable. He also said he had installed blackout curtains throughout his home.
20. Mr X also complained to the Council about his neighbour’s parked vehicle. He said his neighbour frequently parked the vehicle over the pavement. He explained the vehicle was linked to the light issue as the lights would activate every time his neighbour accessed his vehicle, or someone walked past it in the street. He also said this posed a risk to users of wheelchairs and pushchairs who were forced to walk on the road.
21. In November, the Council sent a letter to Mr X’s neighbour to ask them to consider how they might reduce the impact of the light on other residents.
22. The Council triaged Mr X’s complaint to its Environment Enforcement Team. In January 2024 two Environment Officers, Officer A and Officer B, visited Mr X’s address to assess the nature and impact of the light. Mr X said the officers agreed the light was intrusive. Mr X also provided photos, videos, and diary sheets recording instances of the light nuisance to support his complaint.
23. At the beginning of February Officer A emailed Mr X. They said they needed to consult with the Council’s legal team to serve an abatement notice and that Officer B was in the process of doing so at that time.
24. After consulting with the legal team, Officer B’s manager authorised an abatement notice. The Council did not serve this notice or take any other action.
25. Mr X did not hear from either Officer A or Officer B after the email he received in February. Nevertheless, he continued to send diary sheets to the officers from March to July 2024.
26. In July, Mr X approached his local councillor as he had not heard back from the officers and wanted an update on his case.
27. The councillor queried the progress of the case with the Council. He subsequently told Mr X that both Officer A and Officer B had left their roles and were no longer working for the Council, and the Council had closed his case. Mr X discovered his emails and diary sheets had been delivered to the unmonitored but active email inboxes of the two officers since March.
28. The councillor contacted the Environment Enforcement Team on Mr X’s behalf as the light issue remained unresolved. The Council passed Mr X’s case onto a senior officer, Officer C, in August 2024.
29. In late September, Officer C attended Mr X’s property with a colleague. During this visit, Officer C advised Mr X to take extra steps to mitigate the impact of the light in his home. Mr X explained to Officer C that he had already spent a significant amount of money and time putting measures in place and did not feel he should have to take any further steps as this was not reasonable. Mr X said Officer C promised he would return to the property, though there is no record of this.
30. In late September, Officer C wrote to Mr X to tell him he had not found any evidence of a statutory nuisance and that the case had subsequently been closed. Officer C stated that the Council would not reinvestigate unless the situation changed or worsened.
31. In January 2025, Mr X submitted a complaint at stage one of the Council’s complaint process about the handling of the investigation. He also complained of poor communication from the Council. He said he disagreed with the Council’s decision to close his case. He said there had been no real conclusion in the investigation, and he wanted the Council to investigate further.
32. In its response, the Council said Officer C was an experienced Environmental Health Practitioner who had considered all the evidence including photos, videos and diary sheets provided by Mr X. It said Officer C felt Mr X’s decision not to draw his curtains contributed to the impact caused by the light. It also confirmed legal advice received by Officers A and B did not support their initial view there was a statutory nuisance. It apologised for closing the case without informing Mr X.
33. In February 2025, Mr X asked Council to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaint process. He also said it had not addressed his highways complaint at any point throughout either investigation.
34. The Council issued its complaint response and the investigation officer’s report in late March. The Council’s position had not changed. It reiterated the legal advice received as part of the first investigation prevented it taking further action. It accepted it had not handled Mr X’s case well but said the breakdown in communication was due in part to exceptional circumstances within the team. It also acknowledged Mr X’s highways complaint and promised to send a formal response to that part later.
35. When the Council’s highways team responded to Mr X it said a road safety engineer had made a site visit but found little cause for concern. It took account of the limited traffic on the road and the lack of recorded injury collisions in the past five years. It said while some parking had been inconvenient, it did not pose a significant road safety risk. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s complaint responses so approached the Ombudsman in April 2025.

Analysis

Statutory light nuisance investigations

36. I have reviewed the Council’s actions during its first investigation of the light issue. I have seen evidence that shows the officers in the first investigation did consider there to be a statutory light nuisance. Following their visit to Mr X’s property, the officers consulted with the Council’s legal team to seek advice about serving a statutory notice. The legal team explained that while it was preferable to deal with the issue amicably, if a statutory nuisance was identified then an abatement notice must be served. This is correct, as outlined in Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
37. A senior manager then authorised the abatement notice following the legal advice. The abatement notice was not served. This is fault. I understand there were extenuating circumstances within the team, and both Officer A and B left the Council shortly after getting authorisation to serve the notice. However, the Council should have maintained an oversight of the investigation and should have ensured the abatement notice was served in line with its legal duty.
38. I have considered the way the Council made its decision during its second investigation of Mr X’s reports of light nuisance, where it found no evidence of an actionable statutory nuisance. The evidence shows the Council conducted an in-person visit and considered Mr X’s diary sheets, photos and videos. It also considered guidance, in addition to case law and its own statutory nuisance policy. I am satisfied there is no fault in the decision-making process, and as explained in paragraph four, the Ombudsman cannot overturn a decision, even though Mr X disagrees with it. Officer C used their professional judgement and was entitled to take this position.
39. I understand this is a source of frustration for Mr X as he has said the officers in the first investigation told him they thought there was a statutory nuisance. However, the professional judgement of Officer C is separate from that of Officers A and B and must be taken on its own merits.
40. I understand Mr X is frustrated that the Council has said it will not investigate again unless the light issue becomes worse. Mr X says it has and has provided the Council will further diary sheets. However, the Council has reviewed the diary sheets and does not consider any change to be significant enough to investigate again. The Ombudsman cannot tell the Council what its threshold for a new investigation should be, and as above, the Council’s decision not to investigate rests on professional judgement and is not something we can challenge.

Parking complaint

41. I have considered the Council’s handling of Mr X’s highways complaint regarding his neighbour’s parked vehicle. A Road Safety Engineer made a site visit to assess any impact of the parked vehicle and decided there was no substantial safety risk. The Council explained its position, how it had arrived at its decision, and told Mr X it would continue to monitor parking in the area. There was no fault in the way it made this decision, nor can I comment on the merits of the Council’s professional judgment, which it was entitled to reach.

Complaint handling and communication

42. I have considered the chronology of the Council’s actions over the course of the three investigations.
43. It is clear the Council took no action on Mr X’s light nuisance case between March and September 2024. The Council told Mr X in its stage two complaint response that it had closed his case after deciding there was no statutory light nuisance during the first investigation. It apologised for not communicating this to him.
44. However, I have not seen any evidence that supports the Council’s account, nor have I seen any evidence that it documented its rationale or decision for closing the case at the time. It seems when Officer A and Officer B left the Council, the Council did not transfer ownership of the investigation and did not ensure oversight or monitoring of the officers’ active email inboxes. Mr X had been sending diary sheets and emails requesting updates for months until a local councillor told him both officers had left the Council. I find the Council at fault for poor complaint handling and communication. Though the Council has accepted this, apologised to Mr X, and said it will ensure inboxes are monitored going forwards, I have made a further recommendation below.
45. Mr X also raised his parking complaint during the first investigation in 2023. He did not receive a formal response to this until 2025, after the Council’s stage two complaint response. This is a significant delay, which amounts to fault. I have addressed the injustice caused by these faults below.

Injustice

46. The Council’s failure to serve the abatement notice when it identified a statutory nuisance is fault. This fault caused an injustice to Mr X because, had it served the notice as intended and legally required, Mr X’s neighbour would have had to comply with the notice stop the light shining as often into Mr X’s property, resolving Mr X’s issue.
47. This injustice is further compounded by the Council’s poor handling of its first investigation. Had the investigation been better managed when Officer A and Officer B left the Council, and there had not been a six month delay in action, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the abatement notice would have been served, considering legal advice had been sought and the notice already authorised. That the case was closed with no further action but then later reopened by Officer C, who made a different professional judgement, is unfortunate for Mr X. Though it is not our role to comment on this professional judgement, and the second investigation must be considered separately from the first, I consider the overall handling of the investigation has caused Mr X frustration and distress.
48. The Council’s poor communication and delay in handling both the light nuisance complaint and the parking complaint also caused further injustice to Mr X. He spent considerable and avoidable time and effort trying to seek a response from the Council.
49. I have recommended remedies to address this injustice below.

Back to top

Action

50. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by its poor handling of the first statutory nuisance investigation, and for its delay in handling his highways complaint.
2. Issue written reminders to staff of the Council’s legal duty to serve an abatement notice if it identifies a statutory nuisance.
3. Issue written reminders to staff to document all decisions made on statutory nuisance cases.
4. Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by its poor complaint handling and communication.
5. Make a further payment to Mr X of £1400 to reflect the period from March-September 2024, when the Council had identified a statutory nuisance but failed to serve an abatement notice, therefore impacting Mr X’s amenity.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

52. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman