London Borough of Barnet (24 018 303)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 01-Apr-2025

Summary:Ms X complained about noise from a nearby construction site. She said the Council failed to:

Herefordshire Council (24 007 066)

Statement Upheld Noise 30-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr D complained the Council delayed investigating an alleged noise and light nuisance. Based on current evidence I have found the Council delayed investigating the case which meant Mr D had to wait longer than is reasonable for his case to progress. The Council will explain to the Ombudsman the actions taken to prevent a similar fault occurring.

London Borough of Barnet (24 017 521)

Statement Upheld Noise 27-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act on reports of noise nuisance. We are satisfied with the Council’s proposed actions on the matter. Also, we will not investigate a complaint about a failure to disclose personal data. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office on this point.

Westminster City Council (24 009 997)

Statement Upheld Noise 26-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate or take appropriate enforcement action in relation to his reports of nuisance in the form of noise, heat and odours from a dry cleaning business operating in the building below his home. We found the delay in investigating Mr X’s concerns about heat affecting his property and the failings in communication are fault. These fault have caused Mr X distress and inconvenience and put him to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 017 405)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 25-Mar-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his reports of noise and anti-social behaviour. Part of his complaint is late and there are no good reasons it could not have been made sooner. Nor will we investigate the parts that are not late, because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation into these other parts of his complaint.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 018 093)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 19-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s noise nuisance complaint regarding a licensed property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 017 829)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 14-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a noise nuisance complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Hartlepool Borough Council (24 014 205)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 11-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate a statutory nuisance complaint at a landfill site or its communication with Mr X and residents. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Bristol City Council (24 017 800)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 11-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not enforcing against noise from a nearby football pitch and how it investigated the matter. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Brighton & Hove City Council (24 016 788)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 10-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mx Y’s complaint about the Council’s licensing panel decision on the licence of a nearby premises, that it failed to deal with noise nuisance from the premises, failed to visit the premises when noise was being reported, and failed to deal with a letter sent by the premise’s owners to those raising noise complaints. Mx Y had a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court against the panel decision which it was reasonable for her to have used. The complaints about Environmental Health (EH) officers’ actions and the premises owner’s letter are late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate them now. Even if we exercised discretion to consider the late complaint about EH officers, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating.