My neighbour is causing a nuisance – what can I do?

We are frequently asked to help clients with issues caused by neighbours or people they live in close proximity to.

Some common themes include neighbours piling up rubbish or miscellaneous items outside their property and making it look like an eyesore, neighbours smoking cannabis outside their property, making noise at unsocial hours, and dogs barking.

What can you do if your neighbour is causing a nuisance?

The first thing to consider is whether the issue is enough to be classed as a legal nuisance so you can take legal action.

Although the issue may be annoying to you unless you can establish a legal basis for taking action, the issue is one that a local council might be prepared to take up on your behalf, or there is a criminal element where you can involve the police, there might not be a great deal that you can do.

Private nuisance is caused by a person doing something on their own land which they are lawfully entitled to do but which wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighbouring land by, for example causing physical damage. However, you do not always have to have physical damage in order to be able to pursue a claim in nuisance.

What do I need to be able to pursue a nuisance claim?

The damage or interference with the enjoyment of the neighbours' land has to be:

• substantial or unreasonable
• It can arise from a single incident or a state of affairs
• It can either be caused by inaction or omission on the part of the neighbour as well as a positive act.

The courts will expect however, some give and take and an element of reasonableness between neighbours.

What can I do if the front of my neighbour's house is untidy and an eyesore?

In the first instance, try speaking to your neighbour to ask if they will tidy the area and perhaps offer to help.

If communication is difficult or impossible, consider writing a letter to your neighbour to see if they respond.

As we mentioned above, there needs to be some give and take, and what one homeowner might consider acceptable may be the opposite of what other people deem acceptable.

For some people, a neighbour's having a transit van, a caravan, or a rusting, unroadworthy vehicle parked on their drive might annoy them, but unless there are covenants on the property title that prohibit that, you may not be able to legally force the neighbour to relocate.

If you have a neighbour who is a hoarder and the outside of their property is piled high with miscellaneous articles, causing a health and safety risk to you or your property, or the hoard is attracting vermin, then the local council might be able to help. The council might step in to serve notice on the neighbour to tidy up the area.

In the most serious cases, if it is a legal nuisance, you can ask a neighbour dispute solicitor to write to the neighbour and take action.

Can I stop my neighbour smoking cigarettes or cannabis outside my property?

This may depend on where the smoking is taking place. If the neighbour is smoking in their garden, then there is very little you can do to stop the smoke wafting over into your garden.

If the neighbour is smoking cannabis on a regular basis, the police may be interested and may visit the neighbour to stop the activity.

Councils may also investigate smoke from premises that are classed as a statutory nuisance, as outlined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  

Smoke must conform to the criteria below to be considered a statutory nuisance.

• Unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises
• Is injurious to health or is likely to injure health.

As you can see from the above, there is a marked difference between a nuisance and a legal nuisance, which leaves many neighbours in despair about others' inconsiderate behaviour.

Recent nuisance and negligence cases

Often, there can be a crossover between nuisance and negligence claims involving neighbouring landowners. It might be possible to argue that the acts that are causing a nuisance to a neighbouring landowner also arise from negligence and a breach of duty of care.

A recent case has addressed this issue, and it is a helpful reminder of the court’s approach to negligence in this area.

The case concerned was Nicholas & Others v Thomas and Others [2025] EWHC 752.

The High Court upheld the claim for nuisance and negligence brought by the operator of a falcon breeding business against their neighbour, who owned and operated a scaffolding business on their land. It is noteworthy that the scaffold business was run without planning permission.

Initially, the neighbour's relationship was good, but it then deteriorated. The owner of the falcon breeding business brought proceedings against their neighbour, alleging nuisance and negligence, and in particular that the activities on the scaffold business land had caused the deaths of 3 valuable falcons and led to additional breeding losses.

They alleged that excessive noise from the neighbouring land affected the aviary. The operation of a 10-metre truck-mounted crane disrupted the birds’ line of sight and posed a visual threat, causing the birds stress, which they claimed amounted to a nuisance.

In addition, they argued that the same acts of nuisance also amounted to negligence by the neighbour, who had breached their duty of care not to cause or permit the falcons to suffer excessive noise or visual threats, particularly during the breeding season.

They bought expert veterinary evidence that the cause of death of the falcons was a type of liver disease which had been caused by stress.

The claimant was successful in their claim for damages and nuisance in negligence and was awarded £258,500 for the loss of 3 valuable birds, eggs, and chicks that would have hatched but for the acts complained of.

The complainants also brought a claim for injunctive relief to restrain the scaffold business from causing excessive noise during certain months of the breeding season, but that claim was dismissed. The Court was not persuaded to grant an injunction in the wide terms sought and instead encouraged the parties to reach an agreement between themselves.

Interestingly, the claimants relied on a Canadian Supreme Court decision to argue that the court could find the scaffold business liable for both nuisance and negligence. In the Canadian case from 1953, Grandel v Mason, the defendants were found liable in both nuisance and negligence whilst undertaking repair and construction works to the road. The noise from the works had allegedly caused the loss of several female mink and their young on an adjacent mink farm.

In that case, the claimant told the Highway Department that the noise could adversely affect the female mink, and the lead engineer instructed leaving a 1200-foot gap in the roadworks to minimise any disturbance. However, this was ignored, and the defendant was found to have acted contrary to those instructions. The Court therefore considered it reasonably foreseeable that the damage would result from their actions, as they were already on notice of the sensitivity of the mink.

In the Nicholas case, the High Court followed the Grandel decision and held that liability in negligence can arise out of building works if those works have not been undertaken with reasonable skill and care and if the defendant has been put on notice before the works start that it might need to make reasonable adjustments to avoid any undue interference with the neighbour on their land.

The Court held that there could be dual liability in both nuisance and negligence. It commented that a defendant who has committed an actionable nuisance might also be held liable in negligence where there is no need for ant required skill and care, whether by act or omission, in the performance of the activity on the defendant's land but the circumstances in which that (otherwise not negligent) activity is undertaken put him in breach of a duty of care to the claimant.

The Court made it clear that to establish the negligence, the claimant in the Nicholas case had to show that the other party were aware that the activities on their land during breeding season were likely to cause harm. They needed to persuade the Court that there was evidence of foreseeability of harm, proximity and that a finding of negligence should be made based on fairness, justness and reasonableness.

The negligence finding was founded on the basis that the scaffold company's activities around their use of their land were causing harm to the falconry business, particularly during the breeding season, and that the scaffold business had failed to take any steps to minimise the harm that would be caused to the falconry business.

Despite the first-instance decision, permission to appeal has been granted, and the appeal is due to be heard early in 2026.