South Cambridgeshire District Council (19 016 999)

Statement Not upheld Noise 07-Aug-2020

Summary: Mr X complained about noise from a nearby wind farm, which he says is upsetting and harmful to health. The Council was not at fault. It made appropriate enquiries but decided the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance.

Eastbourne Borough Council (19 015 963)

Statement Upheld Noise 22-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to take no action against a noise complaint. They also complain about the Council’s communication and complaint handling. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decision to take no further action on the noise complaint. We do find some fault with the Council’s communication. We have recommended the Council apologise.

Broxbourne Borough Council (19 012 554)

Statement Upheld Noise 13-Jul-2020

Summary: The complainant says the Council did not properly consider using its powers to stop noise nuisance from the complainant’s neighbours and failed to consider a complaint without delay. The Council recognised failings and offered a payment. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and recommends a greater remedy.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 006 679)

Statement Upheld Noise 26-Jun-2020

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to act when he reported a breach of planning control and noise nuisance. The Council failed to consider information presented to discharge a planning condition or consider whether enforcement action was appropriate. That left Mr B with potentially less protection from noise. The Council also failed to carry out further noise monitoring as it promised. An apology, payment to Mr B and an action plan to address the planning condition is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

North Hertfordshire District Council (19 003 281)

Statement Upheld Noise 23-Jun-2020

Summary: The complainants say they incurred expense taking noise mitigation measures for their business, needed because of faults by the Council in how it approved a neighbouring housing development. We uphold the complaint finding fault in the Council’s actions and agree this caused the complainants injustice through the expenses they incurred as well as their time and trouble. The Council agreed to remedy this injustice by reimbursing the complainants and providing an apology.

Staffordshire County Council (19 013 949)

Statement Not upheld Noise 15-Jun-2020

Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to mitigate noise nuisance caused by building works. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council regarding the noise issue. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Rochford District Council (19 010 186)

Statement Not upheld Noise 08-Jun-2020

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council responded to reports he made about waste, anti-social behaviour and noise. The neighbour’s behaviour causes Mr B stress and anxiety, which Mr B says the Council has compounded. We did not find there was fault by the Council.

Chiltern District Council (19 006 434)

Statement Not upheld Noise 12-May-2020

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it investigated Mr X’s complaints about statutory noise and odour nuisance from neighbouring industrial premises.

Adur District Council (18 011 594)

Statement Not upheld Noise 16-Apr-2020

Summary: Mr Y, who complains on behalf of Mr X, says the Council has failed to act on reports of noise nuisance and breaches of planning control at a site near his home. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matters raised by My Y.

Lincoln City Council (19 020 630)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 14-Apr-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about noise from tree works and running events at the park near her home. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve any more for Ms B.