Noise


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • Cambridge City Council (19 010 524)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 25-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It served an abatement notice when it witnessed noise from Ms B's generator. It could not take formal action over her complaints about noise from moving rowers on the rivers as there is no law it could use.

  • Luton Borough Council (19 009 486)

    Statement Upheld Noise 24-Mar-2020

    Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Mr X's complaints about noise from construction works on a property near his home. Mr X did not suffer any injustice because it is unlikely the outcome would have been different if these faults had not occurred.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (19 003 835)

    Statement Upheld Noise 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Miss X's complaint about the way the Council responded to her concerns about noise and anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. The Council did take some action against the neighbours, but it also identified other actions to address the problem that it did not take. There is no explanation for why the Council did not take these other steps. This created uncertainty for Miss X about whether these measures would have improved the situation. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X to recognise this. It will also advise Miss X of any changes it has made to the service since her complaint.

  • Bristol City Council (19 002 308)

    Statement Upheld Noise 13-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his noise nuisance complaint. The Council's communication and record keeping was poor. The Council was not at fault for deciding the noise was not a statutory nuisance. The Council will apologise to Mr X and carry out service improvements.

  • London Borough of Bromley (19 006 346)

    Statement Upheld Noise 25-Feb-2020

    Summary: Ms B complains about the Council response to her noise nuisance complaint. She says this caused her an injustice because the noise affected her quality of life. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council because it delayed in identifying and responding to the statutory noise nuisance. The agreed actions remedy the injustice caused to Ms B.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (19 010 357)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 25-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to properly investigate a noise nuisance caused by a neighbour's building works in 2019. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.