London Borough of Tower Hamlets (22 014 062)

Statement Upheld Noise 24-Oct-2023

Summary: Miss C says the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns about noise nuisance, failed to respond to some of her communications, failed to consider the evidence she put in and forced her to put in a corporate complaint. The Council failed to record its view on whether noise recording equipment was appropriate, failed to respond to some of Miss C’s communications and failed to address some of the issues Miss C raised in her complaint. None of that affected the outcome. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Spelthorne Borough Council (23 009 760)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 24-Oct-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a complaint about noise nuisance from a neighbouring gym. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Leeds City Council (23 001 992)

Statement Upheld Noise 09-Oct-2023

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s reports of noise from a neighbouring skate park. It properly considered the impact on Mr B and acted in line with relevant legislation. It was, however, at fault for a later delay in responding to Mr B’s emails. But it has already apologised for this delay, so no further action is needed.

Durham County Council (23 007 228)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 04-Oct-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s noise nuisance complaints. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

North Yorkshire Council (23 007 905)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 03-Oct-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about personal injury to the complainant following attendance as a music concert held in a Council-owned venue. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable for the complainant to ask the courts to decide if the Council is liable.

Tendring District Council (22 017 365)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 01-Oct-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s reports of noise nuisance from neighbours. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Southwark (23 007 504)

Statement Upheld Noise 01-Oct-2023

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her noise report. This is because the Council has accepted some fault, apologised to Ms X, and spoken with the officer concerned to prevent recurrence. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.

Trafford Council (23 008 630)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 14-Sep-2023

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s decision making on Mr X’s noise complaints. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Dover District Council (23 004 878)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 13-Sep-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Ms X’s report of noise nuisance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

South Lakeland District Council (22 012 352)

Statement Upheld Noise 06-Sep-2023

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of noise complaints in 2021 and 2022. The Council did not properly investigate the noise reports in 2021 and failed to progress the 2022 reports after the case was transferred to its licensing team in August 2022. It also delayed in responding to the formal complaint and failed to send a written response. The Council will apologise, pay Mr X £200 for the uncertainty caused and make service improvements.