St Albans City Council (24 019 295)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 30-Sep-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation into an alleged statutory nuisance from a neighbouring business. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Bristol City Council (24 014 540)

Statement Upheld Noise 29-Sep-2025

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act properly when it assessed noise coming from a sports club close to his home. We find the Council to be at fault. The Council did not properly consider Mr X’s complaint. It failed to make a proper assessment of the noise. It should re-assess the noise and take the appropriate action, should a statutory nuisance be found.

Bassetlaw District Council (24 015 237)

Statement Upheld Noise 29-Sep-2025

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take effective action with complaints he made about excessive noise from a nearby business. We found the Council at fault for not acting on Mr X’s noise reports over the period considered which caused him significant frustration. We do not find fault with the Council’s later investigation into the noise concerns and the decision it made. The Council has agreed to apologise for the injustice caused.

London Borough of Hackney (25 000 214)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 29-Sep-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint how the Council dealt with a noise complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 018 892)

Statement Upheld Noise 25-Sep-2025

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed investigating his noise complaint. We found the Council delayed taking action and responding to Mr X, which caused him distress and inconvenience. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to pay Mr X £500 to recognise the impact of the delay.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 018 515)

Statement Not upheld Noise 18-Sep-2025

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council has not dealt with his noise complaints appropriately. He says the noise has therefore continued and impacted his home life. We found the Council is not at fault.

Ashford Borough Council (24 023 286)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 16-Sep-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss Y is seeking.

Dacorum Borough Council (24 015 859)

Statement Upheld Noise 09-Sep-2025

Summary: We have no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision that a noise does not amount to a statutory nuisance. However, there was fault by the Council, because it has considered irrelevant factors as part of its decision-making. This did not cause an injustice to the complainant, but the Council has agreed to issue guidance to its staff.

Tewkesbury Borough Council (24 013 686)

Statement Upheld Noise 27-Aug-2025

Summary: Miss B complained the Council had failed to resolve a long-standing noise nuisance caused to her by a neighbouring landowner who keeps many dogs. We upheld the complaint, finding there was some unnecessary delay and poor communication in the Council’s response to Miss B’s reports. We found these faults caused injustice to Miss B in adding to the length of its investigation and avoidable distress. The Council accepted these findings. At the end of the statement, we set out actions agreed by the Council to remedy Miss B’s injustice. These include that it will apologise, make a symbolic payment to Miss B and agree a plan to include regular communication with her moving forward.

London Borough of Sutton (25 003 156)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 26-Aug-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly respond to Ms X’s noise complaints. This is because part of the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable for Ms X to complain sooner.