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.

Noise


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • West Lindsey District Council (20 009 972)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 02-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in how it responded to her complaints of nuisance caused by a takeaway food business operating in premises next to her home. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

  • Forest of Dean District Council (20 012 622)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 30-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions as part of an ongoing dispute with his neighbour about noise nuisance. We have discontinued our investigation into his complaint because we do not have jurisdiction over the substantive matter because Mr X and his neighbour are both housing association tenants.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 001 810)

    Statement Upheld Noise 23-Jul-2021

    Summary: There is no fault in a lack of notification or consultation about the construction of a new playground, because it was permitted development. We have discontinued our investigation of the resultant alleged noise nuisance, because this is a matter better addressed by the magistrates' courts, and there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered alleged anti-social behaviour. But there was fault in the Council's complaint handling, for which it has agreed to formally apologise.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 001 806)

    Statement Upheld Noise 21-Jul-2021

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in a lack of notification or consultation about the construction of a new playground, because it was permitted development. We have discontinued our investigation of the resultant alleged noise nuisance, because this is a matter better addressed by the magistrates' courts, and there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered alleged anti-social behaviour. But there was fault in the Council's complaint handling, for which it should formally apologise.

  • London Borough of Enfield (20 002 422)

    Statement Upheld Noise 21-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council's handling of his complaint about noise from his neighbour. Mr Y says this caused stress and distress, and affected his ability to sleep and work. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. It failed to clearly communicate with Mr Y about what action it would or could take, or keep him updated. To remedy the injustice this caused Mr Y, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty this caused. The Council also agreed to review the way it communicates with complainants as well as how it communicates with other bodies involved in resolving reports of noise nuisances.

  • Maidstone Borough Council (20 004 909)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 16-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to properly investigate a noise complaint he made about his neighbour. He says it has impacted his and his wife's wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 495)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 16-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his noise complaint about a barking dog. He says it caused inconvenience, and the Council's incompetence added to the anguish caused by the barking dog. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

  • Trafford Council (20 009 198)

    Statement Upheld Noise 16-Jul-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns about noise and anti-social behaviour by her neighbours. She also said the Council's officer communicated with her inappropriately. There was not enough evidence the Council properly considered Ms X's evening noise complaint and there were delays in its complaints handling. This caused Ms X some limited distress and time and trouble. There was no fault on the other matters complained about. The Council accepted our recommendation of an apology and a financial remedy for Ms X.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 008 213)

    Statement Upheld Noise 13-Jul-2021

    Summary: There is no fault in how the Council decided the noise from a Waste Transfer Facility was not a statutory nuisance. Its failure to require its contractor to adhere to permit conditions about hours of operation is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr and Mrs X £500 and require its contractor to work within permitted hours.