Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • Luton Borough Council (21 001 111)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 03-Nov-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged it did not act to stop alleged noise nuisance from a telecommunications site.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 003 304)

    Statement Upheld Noise 01-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed investigating her complaint about noise nuisance from her neighbours and did not act when it had enough evidence to do so. We found fault as the Council delayed starting an investigation which caused Mrs X frustration. The Council had already remedied this injustice by apologising to Mrs X.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (20 005 569)

    Statement Upheld Noise 28-Oct-2021

    Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to investigate a noise and pollution nuisance correctly and did not take enforcement action. Miss B says the nuisances caused her and her partner distress and affected their health. We found fault with the Council for delays in its complaint procedure. This caused Miss B frustration. The Council will pay Miss B £100 for the frustration caused by its delay responding to her complaint.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 013 009)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 19-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council investigated his complaints about noise from a neighbouring property. He believes the Council is wrong to say that the noise does not constitute a statutory nuisance. I do not consider I can achieve the outcome Mr X wants and intend to discontinue this investigation.

  • Cheshire East Council (20 005 989)

    Statement Upheld Noise 27-Aug-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mrs H's complaint against the Council about it failing to: make representations to a review committee; object to Temporary Events Notices; communicate with her properly; issue a valid Noise Abatement Notice; ensure there were no delays; consider evidence. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 018 571)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 25-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not taken action on a noise nuisance which is impacting his family. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for not taking further action following its investigation. This is because the Council investigated the alleged noise and collected evidence as to whether the noise was a statutory nuisance before making the decision not to take further action.

  • Bristol City Council (20 013 793)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 13-Aug-2021

    Summary: Miss C says the Council failed to take action to prevent a local pub from making noise and causing a nuisance. She says this caused her injustice because her sleep and peace were disturbed. The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation because we could not achieve the result Miss C wants.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 017 415)

    Statement Upheld Noise 10-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has failed to resolve noise nuisance issues caused by his neighbour in a timely manner. He says this has caused him distress and frustration. The Ombudsman has upheld Mr Y's complaint because there is fault by the Council causing injustice. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and make him a payment.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 011 373)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 03-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council investigated his reports of noise and odour nuisance. We did not find fault with the Council.