Noise archive 2019-2020


Archive has 89 results

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 016 928)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 08-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to properly investigate a continuing noise nuisance from a property close to her home. She complained the Council refused to add her to its out of hours property list and disregarded recordings of the problem. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the Council’s actions.

  • Exeter City Council (18 017 483)

    Statement Upheld Noise 29-Jul-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s investigation of her reports of noise and vibration. There was no fault in its investigation and how it made its decision to close the case. It should have summarised the outcome of its investigation into her allegation about a member of staff. It agreed to apologise to Ms X for this fault.

  • Selby District Council (19 000 133)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 26-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly investigated a noise from a neighbouring property as it has not carried out monitoring when the weather is below freezing. The Council has installed noise monitoring equipment on two occasions and this includes when the temperature fell below zero. The Council’s professional judgment is the noise does not constitute a statutory nuisance. There is no fault in how the Council investigated the noise complaint.

  • South Kesteven District Council (18 007 078)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 19-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his complaints about noise nuisance, vibrations and airborne substances from a business operating next to his property. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

  • South Oxfordshire District Council (18 017 185)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 17-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has failed to adequately deal with persistent and longstanding noise from his neighbour’s donkeys, cockerels and dogs. He says this has caused inconvenience and disturbance which affects his sleep and impacts on his quality of life. He says the Council’s delay in adequately dealing with the noise has caused distress and anxiety. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • East Cambridgeshire District Council (18 019 916)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 09-Jul-2019

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of an alleged nuisance caused by noise and dust from a construction site. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. And, in any event, Mr Q has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

  • Lichfield District Council (18 006 512)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 08-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in taking action when she complained of noise nuisance from a nearby bar. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (18 011 221)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 04-Jul-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s failure to further investigate her complaints of neighbour noise nuisance. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

  • Transport for London (19 002 924)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 03-Jul-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains TfL has taken no action to address the loud volume of public announcements made at the open-air platforms at the tube station close to her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence that Ms X has been caused injustice as a result of fault by TfL and an investigation by the Ombudsman will not achieve the results she seeks.

  • Manchester City Council (18 007 474)

    Statement Upheld Noise 28-Jun-2019

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council assessed whether the noise that Mr B and Mr C complained about was a statutory nuisance. There was fault in its delay in carrying out an inspection of the licensed premises and in failing to check whether the agreed noise levels were adhered to. There was no fault in the Council’s actions in ensuring that the new conditions of the licence were adhered to. The Council has already remedied the fault by apologising and service improvements.

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