Noise


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Lambeth (18 006 520)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 20-May-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council has failed to properly investigate a possible noise and light nuisance caused to him by a nearby sports pitch. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • London Borough of Newham (17 019 400)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 13-May-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to properly investigate and take appropriate action in response to his reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. Mr C says because of the Council's fault he suffers unacceptable noise from banging, doors slamming and shouting. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Sutton (18 012 349)

    Statement Upheld Noise 08-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not done enough to address her reports of noise coming from her neighbour's motorbike. We uphold Mrs X's complaint. The Council did not adequately investigate her noise complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy her injustice.

  • West Lindsey District Council (18 013 407)

    Statement Upheld Noise 03-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not assessed the noise levels made by a nearby business's new fans. He says the Council has not enforced a breach of a planning condition about this noise. There is fault here because the Council delayed carrying out the noise assessment of the fans.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (17 019 945)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 30-Apr-2019

    Summary: Ms D complains that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to respond to her complaints about noise nuisance from the flat below. The Ombudsman has found no significant fault in the way the Council's Environmental Health team has responded to her concerns. The actions of the Council's Housing team are outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • Surrey Heath Borough Council (18 015 617)

    Statement Upheld Noise 30-Apr-2019

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in considering a planning application for a garage. There was a delay in offering to install a noise monitor. The Council's apology and offer to appoint a noise consultant remedies the injustice from this fault.

  • Gloucester City Council (18 007 916)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 15-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr C complained that the Council had failed to enforce breaches of a Statutory Abatement Notice and this caused a delay in getting the noise issue resolved. He also said that the Council had failed to retain planning documents for the housing estate where he lived. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

  • Wiltshire Council (18 000 805)

    Statement Upheld Noise 05-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not respond appropriately to his noise complaint and did not make reasonable adjustments for his condition when dealing with his complaint. There is not enough evidence to find the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments in its dealings with Mr X. But, it did fail to communicate effectively with him. This caused a breakdown in relations between the Council and Mr X, in turn effectively halting the investigation into Mr X's initial noise complaint. The Council should apologise to Mr X.

  • Bromsgrove District Council (18 005 330)

    Statement Upheld Noise 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider properly noise complaints from him and his partner and the Council withdrew abatement notices inappropriately. We found the Council reached these decisions properly. Mr X also complained about the way the Council handled the investigation. We found there was fault in the way the Council agreed noise testing with those responsible for the noise. The Council agreed to pay £100 to Mr X to remedy his injustice.

  • Salford City Council (18 008 593)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 25-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr K complains about the Council not investigating his complaint about noise nuisance. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council. It closed its file after Mr K did not provide the information it requested.