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:

  • Bristol City Council (21 011 798)

    Statement Upheld Noise 09-May-2022

    Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her complaints of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property causing distress. We found fault in the way the Council responded to Ms X's complaints as it failed to send her case closed letters. But this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in its noise nuisance investigation and in making a decision there was no ongoing statutory nuisance. So, we are completing our investigation.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 823)

    Statement Upheld Noise 02-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly investigated complaints of noise nuisance and breaches of planning control properly. The Council is at fault because it has not fully considered Mrs X's original noise nuisance complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, investigate Mrs X's noise nuisance complaint and pay her £50 for time and trouble.

  • Epping Forest District Council (21 007 545)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 25-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take reasonable steps to investigate his complaint about statutory noise nuisance. Mr X says the noise nuisance caused distress and damage to mental health. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • Sheffield City Council (21 000 037)

    Statement Upheld Noise 24-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Ms J's complaint about its failure to take enforcement action against noisy neighbours. It failed to provide us with complete records, show it considered and reached a decision on her acoustic report, and failed to show whether officers properly considered and reviewed the case after witnessing two breaches of an abatement notice. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

  • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (21 008 015)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 20-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about noise nuisance from a factory near his home. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the way the Council considered Mr X's reports of alleged noise nuisance.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (21 004 178)

    Statement Upheld Noise 03-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate a noise and pollution nuisance and did not take enforcement action to stop it. He also claims the Council discriminated against him. We do not find the Council at fault with its handing of his complaint about nuisances. However, the Council has accepted was at fault by not responding to Mr X's complaint about discrimination and has now done so and apologised.

  • London Borough of Southwark (21 000 039)

    Statement Upheld Noise 27-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms H complained the Council did not take enforcement action about a breach of planning conditions and a noise nuisance. It also delayed responding to her. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint, because of some fault in the Council's communications with Ms H. The Council has agreed to apologise.

  • Hyndburn Borough Council (21 006 619)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 22-Mar-2022

    Summary: Miss X complains about noise nuisance from building works and late night parties from a neighbouring property. She also complains about anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. She says the Council has not investigated her complaints properly. We find no fault with the Council's actions.

  • Manchester City Council (20 010 070)

    Statement Upheld Noise 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Council failed properly to investigate Mr X's complaints about noise from a neighbouring House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £500, and act to improve its service.

  • London Borough of Harrow (20 006 653)

    Statement Upheld Noise 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained that the Council has failed to take adequate action to address noise nuisance from a barking dog at a neighbour's property. We found the Council has taken appropriate action in relation to the matter. However, it was at fault in failing to keep Mr B informed of progress. In recognition of the injustice caused by this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and make a payment to him. It has also agreed to remind officers to keep complainants informed throughout the course of an investigation and when deciding close a case.