Noise archive 2019-2020


Archive has 89 results

  • London Borough of Newham (17 019 400)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 13-May-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to properly investigate and take appropriate action in response to his reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. Mr C says because of the Council's fault he suffers unacceptable noise from banging, doors slamming and shouting. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (18 017 750)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 09-May-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a noise complaint. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the previous investigation by the Council and investigation by the Ombudsman will unlikely lead to a different outcome.

  • Teignbridge District Council (18 017 754)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 09-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action to investigate his complaint about unspecified electronic signals or beams which are entering his home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

  • London Borough of Sutton (18 012 349)

    Statement Upheld Noise 08-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not done enough to address her reports of noise coming from her neighbour’s motorbike. We uphold Mrs X’s complaint. The Council did not adequately investigate her noise complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy her injustice.

  • West Lindsey District Council (18 013 407)

    Statement Upheld Noise 03-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not assessed the noise levels made by a nearby business’s new fans. He says the Council has not enforced a breach of a planning condition about this noise. There is fault here because the Council delayed carrying out the noise assessment of the fans.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (17 019 945)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 30-Apr-2019

    Summary: Ms D complains that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to respond to her complaints about noise nuisance from the flat below. The Ombudsman has found no significant fault in the way the Council’s Environmental Health team has responded to her concerns. The actions of the Council’s Housing team are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

  • Surrey Heath Borough Council (18 015 617)

    Statement Upheld Noise 30-Apr-2019

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in considering a planning application for a garage. There was a delay in offering to install a noise monitor. The Council’s apology and offer to appoint a noise consultant remedies the injustice from this fault.

  • Wyre Forest District Council (18 011 910)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 17-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms D’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with her complaints of noise nuisance by her neighbours. Part of the complaint is late and further investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

  • Gloucester City Council (18 007 916)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 15-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr C complained that the Council had failed to enforce breaches of a Statutory Abatement Notice and this caused a delay in getting the noise issue resolved. He also said that the Council had failed to retain planning documents for the housing estate where he lived. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

  • Wiltshire Council (18 000 805)

    Statement Upheld Noise 05-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not respond appropriately to his noise complaint and did not make reasonable adjustments for his condition when dealing with his complaint. There is not enough evidence to find the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments in its dealings with Mr X. But, it did fail to communicate effectively with him. This caused a breakdown in relations between the Council and Mr X, in turn effectively halting the investigation into Mr X’s initial noise complaint. The Council should apologise to Mr X.

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.

Privacy settings