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 2019-2020

Archive has 89 results

  • Mole Valley District Council (19 013 068)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 30-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council wrongly served an abatement notice on him for noise nuisance. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction because Mr X used his right of appeal to court.

  • Cambridge City Council (19 010 524)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 25-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It served an abatement notice when it witnessed noise from Ms B's generator. It could not take formal action over her complaints about noise from moving rowers on the rivers as there is no law it could use.

  • Luton Borough Council (19 009 486)

    Statement Upheld Noise 24-Mar-2020

    Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Mr X's complaints about noise from construction works on a property near his home. Mr X did not suffer any injustice because it is unlikely the outcome would have been different if these faults had not occurred.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (19 003 835)

    Statement Upheld Noise 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Miss X's complaint about the way the Council responded to her concerns about noise and anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. The Council did take some action against the neighbours, but it also identified other actions to address the problem that it did not take. There is no explanation for why the Council did not take these other steps. This created uncertainty for Miss X about whether these measures would have improved the situation. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X to recognise this. It will also advise Miss X of any changes it has made to the service since her complaint.

  • Bristol City Council (19 002 308)

    Statement Upheld Noise 13-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his noise nuisance complaint. The Council's communication and record keeping was poor. The Council was not at fault for deciding the noise was not a statutory nuisance. The Council will apologise to Mr X and carry out service improvements.

  • Gosport Borough Council (19 018 700)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 04-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about noise and fumes from a generator near the complainant's home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

  • Ryedale District Council (19 016 882)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 03-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about aircraft noise nuisance. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could find fault with the Council causing a significant enough personal injustice to Mr X.

  • Reading Borough Council (19 011 999)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 27-Feb-2020

    Summary: Ms D complains the Council's Environmental Health Team failed to investigate a noise nuisance. The Ombudsman has found the Council investigated the noise issue as part of an anti-social behaviour and breach of tenancy case and those actions fall outside of our remit. The Ombudsman is prevented by law from investigating the key actions of the Council in this case and has discontinued the investigation.

  • London Borough of Bromley (19 006 346)

    Statement Upheld Noise 25-Feb-2020

    Summary: Ms B complains about the Council response to her noise nuisance complaint. She says this caused her an injustice because the noise affected her quality of life. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council because it delayed in identifying and responding to the statutory noise nuisance. The agreed actions remedy the injustice caused to Ms B.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (19 010 357)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 25-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to properly investigate a noise nuisance caused by a neighbour's building works in 2019. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.