on the lessons that can be learnt from our complaints about end of life care given in care homes and in the home.
Category : Environment and regulation > Noise Decision : Closed after initial enquiries Decision date : 06 Feb 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her reports of noise nuisance. Because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.
The complaint
Miss X complains that the Council failed to properly investigate an ongoing noise nuisance affecting her home, which has disrupted her sleep for six months. She wants the Council to appoint an independent noise expert to carry out proper monitoring.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X reported a persistent humming noise coming from an unknown location outside her property.
The Council investigated Miss X’s reports in line with its duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Officers made several visits at different times, installed noise monitoring equipment, and liaised with third parties as part of their investigation. The Council did not identify a statutory nuisance.
The Council said its officers followed the correct procedures and went beyond the minimum requirements when investigating the reports. It decided not to install additional monitoring equipment, as this would not support enforcement action and could not be justified, without new evidence, given the Council’s limited resources. It also advised Miss X of her right to take private action under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 While I understand Miss X continues to be troubled by what she can hear and this must be distressing for her, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to add the action the Council has already undertaken or lead to a different outcome.
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The Council followed appropriate procedures, considered the relevant evidence, and exercised professional judgement when applying the statutory nuisance test. I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out its investigation or reached its decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman