Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (16 019 377)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 04-Dec-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with Mr X's noise nuisance complaint.

  • Leicester City Council (17 012 644)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 01-Dec-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about noise from a dog. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

  • Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (17 012 328)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 30-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaints. The Council has investigated reports of rats in the area and there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to carry out a further visit to Mr X's property to investigate noise from running water in his neighbour's pond. Investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more for Mr X.

  • South Somerset District Council (17 008 318)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 29-Nov-2017

    Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about a noise abatement notice. Because they have lodged an appeal against the notice through the magistrate's court, the Ombudsman is no longer able to investigate the complaint.

  • Swale Borough Council (17 006 304)

    Statement Upheld Noise 27-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for issuing an abatement notice to the complainant Mr Z to make him stop noise nuisance. But the Council failed to properly respond to Mr Z's evidence which showed an officer had inappropriately told Mr Z's partner she would not have issued a notice. The Council should apologise for this.

  • Kingston upon Hull City Council (16 018 567)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 24-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Council properly investigated complaints of noise nuisance using the planning enforcement system and Environmental Protection Act.

  • London Borough of Barnet (16 017 565)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 22-Nov-2017

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about the action taken by the environmental protection team in response to the complainant's concerns about antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (17 010 085)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 22-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B's complaint the Council gave permission for a large outdoor event that woke her at 8am on a Sunday. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve any more for Mrs B.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (16 018 402)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 20-Nov-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council considered the effect of noise from Mr and Mrs X's animal boarding kennels on proposed residential housing during the planning application process.

  • Dover District Council (16 017 485)

    Statement Upheld Noise 10-Nov-2017

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in its handling of a noise nuisance complaint. However, I cannot say that the Council would have been able to take legal proceedings against the alleged perpetrator if it had not been for this fault.