Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to effectively deal with allegations of statutory nuisance at a neighbouring property. Mr X said this has caused him real stress and has affected his health. We find the Council at fault for delays in its investigation and for poor communication. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused and write to him setting out the next steps.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his allegations of statutory nuisances, including loud noises, smells and built-up rubbish from a neighbouring property since 2020. Mr X says the Council failed to properly investigate or take suitable enforcement action. Mr X says this has impacted his health, caused him real stress and affects the peaceful enjoyment of his home.

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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)
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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. We cannot usually investigate events that took place more than 12 months before a complaint was brought to our attention. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
8. Mr X first brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2024, meaning anything that took place before September 2023 has been raised late and I have seen no good reason to exercise discretion to look back further than this.
9. We also cannot usually investigate complaints unless we are satisfied the Council has had a chance to look into them first. This includes events that are linked to or ongoing from the complaint that has been brought to us.
10. Mr X has said he has continued to experience issues since he has contacted the Ombudsman. However, the Council has not yet had a chance to consider these events.
11. For these reasons, I have limited my investigation into Mr X’s complaint to events that occurred between September 2023 and September 2024. Any mention below to events that took place outside of these times are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
13. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

14. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
15. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or an accumulation of deposits on premises.
16. 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.

17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. A person who receives an abatement notice has a right to appeal it in the magistrates’ court. If they can show the court they have done everything reasonable to prevent or minimise the nuisance, the court may decide the abatement notice is not appropriate.
23. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.
24. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.

What happened

25. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
26. Mr X says he began to hear loud music from his neighbour at unsociable hours from mid-2019. Mr X says he first reported this to the Council in mid-2020 and since then has made numerous reports of noise nuisance, smells, and build ups of refuse. The Council had been engaged with the occupant of the property and their landlord, and issued a Noise Abatement Notice, but Mr X has said it had not been able to solve these issues by September 2023.
27. Mr X sent log sheets to the Council in September 2023 to highlight when he had experienced loud noises from the property next door.
28. The Council analysed the corresponding noise recordings from noise monitoring equipment it had installed. It wrote to Mr X to confirm there was not sufficient evidence on which to base a prosecution of statutory nuisance and gave its reasoning for this and said it could try noise monitoring equipment again. The Council also explained it was engaged with the landlord in ensuring all the accumulated refuse from the property was removed.
29. Throughout September 2023 to December 2023, the Council maintained contact with the landlord of the neighbouring property to ensure accumulated waste was removed. Throughout this time, Mr X regularly sent log sheets to the Council to report on issues he experienced.
30. In December 2023, following a report from Mr X, the police issued a written warning to Mr X’s neighbour requiring them to make efforts to prevent themselves from causing disruption or anti-social behaviour by making excessive noise or any noise after 11pm.
31. Mr X then asked the Council to install noise monitoring equipment again. However he explained after recent police involvement, the situation seemed to have improved.
32. The Council agreed to install noise monitoring equipment and said it would have to consider whether to pursue prosecution once it had gathered all the relevant evidence. The Council explained its officer had recently spent the best part of two days in the neighbouring property but had not experienced any significant odours that would likely cause a problem for Mr X’s property. The Council explained it had also scheduled a visit to the property in the new year to check on the clearance work.
33. Mr X provided further log sheets to the Council in January 2024 and explained the noise from the neighbouring property was having an adverse impact on his life. Mr X also said refuse was beginning to build up again.
34. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2024. He explained the police had now issued a warning to his neighbour due to noise, and he felt the Council should consider this when deciding whether a noise nuisance had occurred. Mr X said the Council had failed to deal with the issue despite previously issuing a Noise Abatement Notice and reiterated there was constant loud music as well as smells and built-up refuse at the neighbouring property.
35. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in March 2024. It acknowledged the police had issued his neighbour a warning but explained this was separate to the Council’s own process. It acknowledged it had issued a Noise Abatement Notice the previous year but said, since then it had installed noise monitoring equipment twice and found noise levels were not significant enough to be considered a statutory nuisance. The Council said it could install noise monitoring equipment again, but if this did not result in evidence of a statutory nuisance, it was unlikely the Council could pursue the previous Abatement Notice any further.
36. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider his complaint. He said he was the victim of anti-social behaviour and was frequently exposed to loud music from his neighbour at an unsociable hours. Mr X reiterated that the property was in a state of disrepair and said the Council had failed to take any real action over the course of the last few years.
37. In April 2024 the Council used noise monitoring equipment at Mr X’s home.
38. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in May 2024. It said it was currently reviewing the results of noise monitoring equipment to decide what steps to take next. It explained that based on the condition of the property, it was likely to issue a prohibition order that would result in the occupant having to vacate the property, which would resolve the issues Mr X complained about.
39. The Council then issued a prohibition order to the landlord of the neighbouring property. This confirmed the Council had inspected the property and identified a hazard, and to protect the health and safety of occupants, it prohibited use of the property for the purpose of human habitation until this was resolved.
40. Mr X emailed the Council in June 2024 to explain his neighbour was still living at the property, despite the prohibition order. He explained he was still experiencing smells from the property and refuse was still building up.
41. The Council responded to Mr X to explain it had reminded the landlord of their obligations under the prohibition order and it would try to resolve the issues as soon as possible.
42. Throughout June and July 2024, Mr X continued to return log sheets to the Council. He explained he was still experiencing loud music and smells that were affecting his health and his ability to sleep.
43. The Council wrote to Mr X in July 2024 asking that he keep providing log sheets. However, it reiterated that it had not yet received evidence of or witnessed anything that it felt constituted a statutory nuisance, despite having installed noise monitoring equipment multiple times.
44. Mr X continued to provide log sheets to the Council, often daily.
45. The Council contacted Mr X in July 2024 and explained it would need to witness or use monitoring equipment to gather evidence of a statutory nuisance before it could take action. With regard to the prohibition order, the Council pointed out this was not served as a response to Mr X’s complaints of statutory nuisance, but in relation to hazards within the property. It also pointed out that, unlike noise, domestic odours are not actionable under nuisance legislation.
46. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment at Mr X’s property again in July 2024.
47. The Council visited Mr X’s home in August 2024. It noted music from next door was audible, but it considered it to be at an acceptable level.
48. Mr X continued to provide log sheets to the Council throughout August and September 2024. Mr X explained his wife was unwell and needed to rest but noise from the neighbouring property prevented this.
49. The Council agreed to visit Mr X’s property to witness the noise in September 2024, but the neighbour had gone out at the time they scheduled.
50. Mr X continued to email the Council to report noise and smells from the neighbouring property as well as garden fires throughout September. He also asked on several occasions for someone from the Council to come to the property and witness the loud music as it was happening, but this did not take place.

Analysis

51. The Ombudsman’s role is to review councils’ adherence to procedure in making decisions, it is not our role to decide if a statutory nuisance has occurred. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information, and given clear and cogent reasons for its decision, we generally cannot criticise it. We do not make decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a route of appeal against their decisions, and we cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with a council’s decision.
52. The Council was engaged with Mr X throughout the period of time I have looked at. The Council accepted log sheets from Mr X, carried out visits to his property and also installed noise monitoring equipment multiple times. The Council informed Mr X of its reasons for not taking further action when it did not feel it had sufficient evidence to identify a statutory nuisance, but offered to carry out further monitoring. While I appreciate Mr X feels the Council should have acted to prosecute his neighbour, I could not find fault with the steps the Council took to investigate his concerns.
53. The Council acknowledged there was noise coming from Mr X’s neighbour but explained why it could not conclude this was a statutory nuisance. It also explained why smells from the property were not considered a statutory nuisance and ensured refuse was cleared. I do not find the Council at fault here as it gave Mr X its view of his complaints while it continued to investigate. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view, but that is not a reason for me to find the Council at fault.
54. Mr X repeatedly reminded the Council that it had issued a Prohibition Order to the landlord of the property, which meant the neighbour should vacate it. I understand Mr X’s frustration that the Council did not enforce this, however that is a separate process to investigating alleged statutory nuisances and I could not find the Council at fault for not prosecuting the landlord in relation to this matter. That said, the fact the Council mentioned the Prohibition Order to Mr X and said it would result in the removal of his neighbour and put an end to the situation he was complaining about raised his expectations. I find this amounts to fault and would have caused uncertainty for Mr X, which is injustice.
55. The Council also investigated throughout the year covered by my investigation without reaching a meaningful conclusion or highlighting Mr X’s right to take private action. This is a considerable delay, which amounts to fault and caused real uncertainty for Mr X, which is injustice.
56. The communication from the Council to Mr X also appears to have been inconsistent throughout. Mr X was in constant contact with the Council but often had to chase responses and updates at what was clearly a very distressing time for him. This amounts to fault and caused further uncertainty for Mr X, which is injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. To address the injustice caused by the faults identified above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of my decision:
• Write to Mr X to apologise for the delays in reaching a resolution to his complaint about alleged statutory nuisances and for the failure to keep him fully updated throughout. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mr X £300 to recognise the uncertainty caused by the delays in concluding its investigation and for the injustice caused by the communication failings.
• Write to Mr X with a plan setting out a timeline and exactly what action the Council will take going forwards to assess Mr X’s allegations and reach an end to its investigation, also explaining his right to take private action.
58. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I find the Council at fault for delays in resolving Mr X’s complaint about alleged statutory nuisances and for poor communication. The Council has accepted the recommendations above and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman