Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 14-Jul-2017
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's actions when his partner's car alarm went off. Ms B had a right of appeal against the Noise Abatement Notice and the Council can seek to recover its costs involved in silencing the alarm from Ms B.
Statement Upheld Noise 14-Jul-2017
Summary: I uphold this complaint about the Council's noise investigation as there was some fault causing injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council had already agreed was enough to remedy the complaint.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 12-Jul-2017
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to respond properly to reports of noise nuisance from a nursery. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, it is too late to investigate whether the Council should have granted planning permission in 2003.
Statement Upheld Noise 10-Jul-2017
Summary: The Council was wrong to dismiss Mr B's complaints as noise nuisance without providing further diary sheets and undertaking further investigation as he had requested. The Council accepts the Ombudsman's recommendation that the Council pay Mr B £100 as a remedy for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint and ensure that officers provide clear and appropriate advice.
Statement Not upheld Noise 05-Jul-2017
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to act when he made a complaint about noise. He complained his complaint was not dealt with properly. There was no fault by the Council's environmental health department.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 03-Jul-2017
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions. We have considered the Council's response to Mr X. It is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot add to the Council's actions.
Statement Not upheld Noise 29-Jun-2017
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council investigated her noise complaint. There is no longer a continuing noise problem so the Ombudsman's investigation has stopped.
Statement Not upheld Noise 08-Jun-2017
Summary: There was no fault in the process the Council followed when it decided not to enforce against the owner of a wind turbine permitted in 2013, about 200 metres from Mr X's caravan. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement when deciding not to use its discretionary enforcement powers. It took several months for the Council to reach its decision not to enforce. But that did not cause a delay to enforcement action, as the Council decided not to, and did not change its decision. It is not fault the Council did not take account of Mr X's property amenity during the turbine application. When the turbine permission was granted, Mr X was living in the caravan without residential permission.
Statement Upheld Noise 02-Jun-2017
Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to deal with Mr X's concerns about noise and dust pollution from a dual carriageway. The Council has apologised to Mr X and taken appropriate action to respond to his concerns.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 26-May-2017
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council has failed to fix the problem of the constant banging noise from the flat above his home. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find there has been fault by the Council in its decision-making process.