London Borough of Redbridge (21 002 946)

Statement Upheld Noise 09-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of concerns about anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance from a care home. We find fault with the Council for not taking all reasonable steps to investigate Mr X’s reports of alleged noise nuisance. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Sheffield City Council (20 011 499)

Statement Upheld Noise 03-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to take appropriate action when he raised concerns about air and noise pollution from idling buses near to where he lives. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to consider its duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address Mr D’s injustice.

North Hertfordshire District Council (21 004 107)

Statement Upheld Noise 28-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action to address noise nuisance caused by two local businesses. The Council was at fault. It delayed taking enforcement action and failed to keep Mr X updated. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge the time and trouble and frustration he has been put to.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 168)

Statement Not upheld Noise 14-Feb-2022

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s investigation of noise complaints. It considered the evidence and then reached a decision not to issue a Community Protection notice after obtaining two lots of legal advice. This complaint is not upheld. The Council’s decision not to investigate another complaint about low frequency noise as it could not hear it, was also without fault.

London Borough of Lewisham (21 001 228)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 09-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with noise from a restaurant vent. Our involvement would not lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Lewisham (21 015 388)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 09-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with noise from a restaurant vent. Our involvement would not lead to a different outcome.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 740)

Statement Upheld Noise 07-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and take action regarding a noise nuisance caused by a nearby sports facility. We have found the Council to be at fault but dealt with this appropriately by installing double glazing, apologising and making an offer of payment to Mr X. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice suffered. We therefore propose completing this investigation.

Somerset West and Taunton Council (21 001 984)

Statement Not upheld Noise 04-Feb-2022

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mrs T’s complaint about how it responded to her reports about the use of a site breaching planning consent which also caused a statutory nuisance. It gave the owner and his agent time to provide the required information. It decided it could keep more control over the land through a planning application than enforcement action. This was because the owner could use the land for this purpose for a certain number of days a year anyway, which had not been exceeded.

Preston City Council (21 007 411)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 02-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise nuisance issues. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used his right of appeal against a Noise Abatement Notice. Further investigation into the seizure of equipment is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council dealt with his reports about a noisy neighbour.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 003 361)

Statement Upheld Noise 31-Jan-2022

Summary: Mr A complains the Council failed to properly investigate his complaints of a statutory noise nuisance, which forced him to move house and incur costs. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to follow its noise policies, and for delaying investigating Mr A’s noise complaints. This caused Mr A distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to pay financial sum to Mr A in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused. The Council has also agreed to implement service improvements.