Archive has 103 results
-
East Suffolk Council (21 011 506)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 04-Jan-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding noise from a farm. This is because the Council investigated the noise and decided it is not a statutory nuisance.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 22-Dec-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to reports of noise nuisance. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 009 080)
Statement Upheld Noise 21-Dec-2021
Summary: Mr F complains about the Council not taking action against a dog that has barked, disturbing his peace for several years. It has not taken account of the affect the barking has had on his mental health. The Ombudsman finds some fault with the Council’s record keeping. But we cannot fault the Council’s decisions that it could not take formal enforcement action, due to not having enough evidence of a statutory nuisance.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (21 005 622)
Statement Upheld Noise 16-Dec-2021
Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council services had not done enough to help alleviate nuisance caused by a neighbouring food business. We upheld the complaint finding fault in the service provided by the Council’s public protection and planning services, causing distress. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we explain the action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (21 005 624)
Statement Upheld Noise 16-Dec-2021
Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council services had not done enough to help alleviate nuisance caused by a neighbouring food business. We upheld the complaint finding fault in the service provided by the Council’s public protection and planning services, causing distress. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we explain the action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice.
-
Leeds City Council (20 014 393)
Statement Upheld Noise 15-Dec-2021
Summary: The Council’s failure to consider whether Mr X’s reports of noise from a neighbouring skate park are a statutory noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £250, and investigate the matter fully.
-
Sunderland City Council (21 010 885)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 09-Dec-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a noise nuisance because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
-
North Yorkshire County Council (21 009 338)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 03-Dec-2021
Summary: We will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about how the Council calculated compensation for households affected by a new transport scheme. This is because Mr A has not been caused a direct injustice.
-
London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (21 011 783)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 22-Nov-2021
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Fire and Rescue Service (F&RS). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the F&RS to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
-
Norwich City Council (20 003 055)
Statement Upheld Noise 16-Nov-2021
Summary: Mr W complains the Council has failed to investigate his noise complaint about a local bar. He also says the Council started a review of the bar’s licence conditions without consulting him and other local residents. We found the Council failed to investigate the existence of a statutory nuisance in the early stages of his complaint. It also failed to respond to Mr W’s concerns and maintain contact with him. This caused Mr W an injustice and so we have recommended a remedy. As to the licence review, the Council was at fault for failing to update its policy on advertising consultations. However, this did not cause Mr W an injustice since the consultation was still advertised in a manner consistent with the law.