Section 82 EPA 1990: three days' notice for noise, twenty-one for other nuisances. Magistrates can order abatement, prohibit use, impose fine up to level 5.
Official text
·
EPA 1990 s. 82 — United Kingdom
A magistrates’ court may act under this section on a complaint or, in Scotland, the sheriff may act under this section on a summary application, made by any person on the ground that he is aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance. If the magistrates’ court or, in Scotland, the sheriff is satisfied that the alleged nuisance exists, or that although abated it is likely to recur on the same premises or, in the case of a nuisance within section 79(1)(ga) above, in the same street or, in Scotland, road , the court or the sheriff shall make an order for either or both of the following purposes— requiring the defendant or, in Scotland, defender to abate the nuisance, within a time specified in the order, and to execute any works necessary for that purpose; prohibiting a recurrence of the nuisance, and requiring the defendant or defender , within a time specified in the order, to execute any works necessary to prevent the recurrence; and , in England and Wales, may also impose on the defendant a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. If the magistrates’ court or the sheriff is satisfied that the alleged nuisance exists and is such as, in the opinion of the court or of the sheriff , to render premises unfit for human habitation, an order under subsection (2) above may prohibit the use of the premises for human habitation until the premises are, to the satisfaction of the court or of the sheriff , rendered fit for that purpose. Proceedings for an order under subsection (2) above shall be brought— except in a case falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d) below , against the person responsible for the nuisance; where the nuisance arises from any defect of a structural character, against the owner of the premises; where the person responsible for the nuisance cannot be found, against the owner or occupier of the premises. in the case of a statutory nuisance within section 79(1)(ga) above caused by noise emitted from or caused by an unattended vehicle or unattended machinery or equipment, against the person responsible for the vehicle, machinery or equipment. Subject to subsection (5A) below, where more than one person is responsible for a statutory nuisance, subsections (1) to (4) above shall apply to each of those persons whether or not what any one of them is responsible for would by itself amount to a nuisance. In relation to a statutory nuisance within section 79(1)(ga) above for which more than one person is responsible (whether or not what any one of those persons is responsible for would by itself amount to such a nuisance), subsection (4)(a) above shall apply with the substitution of “each person responsible for the nuisance who can be found” for “the person responsible for the nuisance”. In relation to a statutory nuisance within section 79(1)(ga) above caused by noise emitted from or caused by an unattended vehicle or unattended machinery or equipment for which more than one person is responsible, subsection (4)(d) above shall apply with the substitution of “any person” for “the person”. Before instituting proceedings for an order under subsection (2) above against any person, the person aggrieved by the nuisance shall give to that person such notice in writing of his intention to bring the proceedings as is applicable to proceedings in respect of a nuisance of that description and the notice shall specify the matter complained of. The notice of the bringing of proceedings in respect of a statutory nuisance required by subsection (6) above which is applicable is— in the case of a nuisance falling within paragraph (g) or (ga) of section 79(1) above, not less than three days’ notice; and in the case of a nuisance of any other description, not less than twenty-one days’ notice; but the Secretary of State may, by order, provide that this subsection shall have effect as if such period as is specified in the order were the minimum period of notice applicable to any description of statutory nuisance specified in the order. A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes any requirement or prohibition imposed by an order under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale together with a further fine of an amount equal to one-tenth of that level one-tenth of the greater of £5,000 or level 4 on the standard scale for each day on which the offence continues after the conviction. Subject to subsection (10) below, in any proceedings for an offence under subsection (8) above in respect of a statutory nuisance it shall be a defence to prove that the best practicable means were used to prevent, or to counteract the effects of, the nuisance. The defence under subsection (9) above is not available— in the case of a nuisance falling within paragraph (a), (d), (e), (f) , (fa) or (g) of section 79(1) above except where the nuisance arises on industrial, trade or business premises; in the case of a nuisance falling within paragraph (fb) of section 79(1) above except where— the artificial light is emitted from industrial, trade or business premises, or the artificial light (not being light to which sub-paragraph (i) applies) is emitted by lights used for the purpose only of illuminating an outdoor relevant sports facility; in the case of a nuisance falling within paragraph (ga) of section 79(1) above except where the noise is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment being used for industrial, trade or business purposes; in the case of a nuisance falling within paragraph (b) of section 79(1) above except where the smoke is emitted from a chimney; in the case of a nuisance falling within paragraph (c) or (h) of section 79(1) above; and in the case of a nuisance which is such as to render the premises unfit for human habitation. For the purposes of subsection (10)(aza) “ relevant sports facility ” has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 80(8)(aza). If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (8) above, a magistrates’ court or the sheriff may, after giving the local authority in whose area the nuisance has occurred an opportunity of being heard, direct the authority to do anything which the person convicted was required to do by the order to which the conviction relates. Where on the hearing of proceedings for an order under subsection (2) above it is proved that the alleged nuisance existed at the date of the making of the complaint or summary application , then, whether or not at the date of the hearing it still exists or is likely to recur, the court or the sheriff shall order the defendant or defender (or defendants or defenders in such proportions as appears fair and reasonable) to pay to the person bringing the proceedings such amount as the court or the sheriff considers reasonably sufficient to compensate him for any expenses properly incurred by him in the proceedings. If it appears to the magistrates’ court or to the sheriff that neither the person responsible for the nuisance nor the owner or occupier of the premises or (as the case may be) the person responsible for the vehicle, machinery or equipment can be found the court or the sheriff may, after giving the local authority in whose area the nuisance has occurred an opportunity of being heard, direct the authority to do anything which the court or the sheriff would have ordered that person to do.
Section 82 is the route that does not need the council. Any person who is "aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance" may complain to the magistrates' court, and if the court is satisfied that the nuisance exists, or that although abated it is likely to recur on the same premises, it "shall" make an order requiring abatement within a specified time, or prohibiting recurrence, or both. It may also impose a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale. Where the nuisance makes premises unfit for human habitation, subsection (3) allows an order prohibiting their use as a dwelling until they are made fit.
The procedural trap is subsection (6). Before starting, the person aggrieved must give the intended defendant written notice of the intention to bring proceedings, specifying the matter complained of - twenty-one days for most nuisances, but only three days where the complaint is about noise under section 79(1)(g) or (ga). Subsection (4) mirrors section 80 on who to proceed against: the person responsible; the owner where the nuisance arises from a structural defect; the owner or occupier where the person responsible cannot be found.
Two further provisions are the reason this section is used at all. Subsection (12) says that where it is proved that the nuisance existed at the date the complaint was made, the court shall order the defendant to pay the complainant such amount as it considers reasonably sufficient to compensate for expenses properly incurred in the proceedings - and that applies whether or not the nuisance still exists by the hearing date, so a landlord or neighbour cannot defeat the complaint entirely by fixing the problem at the door of the court. Subsection (13) allows the court, where nobody responsible can be found, to direct the local authority to do what it would have ordered that person to do.
When it applies
The council has investigated and refused to serve an abatement notice, or has gone quiet, and the noise continues.
A tenant is taking their own landlord to the magistrates over damp and disrepair that makes the flat prejudicial to health.
Noise from a neighbouring flat where the freeholder and managing agent will not act.
A recurring smell or accumulation that stops each time an officer visits and resumes afterwards.
The person responsible cannot be identified and you want the court to direct the council to act.
What this section does not say
×It is not a claim for damages. Subsection (12) covers expenses properly incurred in the proceedings, not compensation for the months of disturbance, sleep loss or the value of your enjoyment of the home.
×It is not a civil claim in the county court. This is a complaint in the magistrates' court, and a private nuisance claim for an injunction and damages is a separate action with different rules.
×It does not skip the warning letter. Proceedings brought without the written notice required by subsection (6) - twenty-one days, or three days for noise - are open to challenge for that reason alone.
×It does not apply to a nuisance that has stopped for good. The court must be satisfied the nuisance exists or is likely to recur on the same premises.
×It does not make the council a party. Except in the limited cases in subsections (11) and (13), the proceedings are against the person responsible, the owner or the occupier.
Worked examples
Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.
Illustrative example
Someone has kept a dated record of amplified music from the flat below for the best part of a year. The council investigated, closed the file for want of officer-witnessed evidence, and will not reopen it. They want to take it further themselves.
How the wording applies
Section 82 is the route that does not need the council: a person aggrieved may complain to the magistrates, and if the court is satisfied the nuisance exists or is likely to recur it shall make an order. The fact the complaint turns on is the written warning in subsection (6) - three days for noise, twenty-one for anything else - because proceedings begun without it are open to challenge for that reason alone. Note also what the section does not offer: subsection (12) covers expenses of the proceedings, not compensation for a year of broken sleep.
How the parties settled it
The two households agree in writing that amplified sound stops at eleven on weeknights and midnight at weekends, with a subwoofer moved off the floor; the complainant agrees to serve no notice while the arrangement holds.
Illustrative example
A tenant has reported black mould and a persistent smell in a rented flat for two winters. The landlord sends someone to paint over it each spring. The council's housing team is short-staffed and has not visited.
How the wording applies
Premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health are within the section 79 list, and section 82 lets the tenant put that in front of the magistrates without waiting for the council. The fact that decides the shape of it is that the complaint must be aimed at the right person under subsection (4) - the owner where the nuisance arises from a structural defect - and that subsection (12) can order the defendant to pay the complainant's expenses even if the works are rushed through just before the hearing.
How the parties settled it
The landlord agrees to an independent survey and to carry out the works it identifies before the end of October, with a rent reduction for the months the second bedroom is unusable; the tenant agrees to hold the complaint in abeyance while the timetable is met.
The same problem elsewhere
The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.
The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.
Noise from the neighbours: what the law says in seven countries
Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.
We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.
This page reproduces the text of EPA 1990 s. 82 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.