Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Noise archive 2017-2018

Archive has 78 results

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (17 009 905)

    Statement Upheld Noise 28-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council was at fault in the way it handled complaints of noise from an industrial estate. It gave wrong advice about making complaints, delayed responding to reports of a new noise issue and failed to respond to a request for information. The Council will apologise to Mr and Mrs X and confirm how it will investigate any future complaints about noise from the industrial estate.

  • Wiltshire Council (17 011 507)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 28-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council investigated his complaints of noise from a neighbour's aviary and the way it reached its decision that the noise was not a statutory nuisance. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated these matters.

  • London Borough of Barnet (17 018 604)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's refusal to investigate volume levels at a local cinema. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault with the Council and there is not enough evidence Mr X has been caused a significant personal injustice.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (17 001 638)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 23-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to act against noise caused by a neighbouring car wash, delayed in assessing the noise, and did not take action against the business on planning grounds. The Ombudsman has not found fault by the Council.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (17 004 901)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 21-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council took suitable and adequate steps to investigate Mr X's reports of a continuing statutory nuisance from a business near his home.

  • Nottingham City Council (16 016 122)

    Statement Upheld Noise 20-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council investigated Mrs X's report of neighbour noise nuisance and use of a CCTV camera promptly. It gave her an officer contact to report ongoing problems and offered to witness them. It responded to Mrs X's request for an update about this and decided it would not take further action. After Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council said it would further investigate her complaint. It did not do so. It has agreed to apologise to her for this. It has reviewed its complaint handling procedures to prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

  • Salford City Council (17 014 393)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 16-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council investigated a complaint of noise nuisance, and so we have completed this investigation.

  • Maidstone Borough Council (17 004 195)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 14-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's lack of action about nuisance he has suffered from his neighbour's property. The Council's decision to close its investigation was not affected by fault. The Council was at fault for not telling Mr B its decision, but this did not cause Mr B a significant injustice.

  • Tendring District Council (17 004 290)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 08-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the way the Council dealt with a complaint it received about noise nuisance. It was reasonable to expect Mr B to use his right of appeal if he thought there were grounds to challenge the abatement notice and is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome for Mr B.

  • East Staffordshire Borough Council (17 006 487)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 07-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council acted without fault in considering complaints of noise nuisance and in exercising its judgement to impose limits on a resident reporting noise nuisance.