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:

  • 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.

  • Bracknell Forest Council (21 010 249)

    Statement Upheld Noise 14-Mar-2022

    Summary: The complainant said the Council failed to investigate a noise nuisance correctly which caused her distress. She said the noise from her neighbour's flat affected her health. She also complained about the way the Council dealt with her complaint. We found fault only with the way the Council handled this complaint. We have made recommendations.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (21 002 946)

    Statement Upheld Noise 09-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of concerns about anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance from a care home. We find fault with the Council for not taking all reasonable steps to investigate Mr X's reports of alleged noise nuisance. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

  • Sheffield City Council (20 011 499)

    Statement Upheld Noise 03-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to take appropriate action when he raised concerns about air and noise pollution from idling buses near to where he lives. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to consider its duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address Mr D's injustice.

  • North Hertfordshire District Council (21 004 107)

    Statement Upheld Noise 28-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action to address noise nuisance caused by two local businesses. The Council was at fault. It delayed taking enforcement action and failed to keep Mr X updated. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge the time and trouble and frustration he has been put to.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 168)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 14-Feb-2022

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's investigation of noise complaints. It considered the evidence and then reached a decision not to issue a Community Protection notice after obtaining two lots of legal advice. This complaint is not upheld. The Council's decision not to investigate another complaint about low frequency noise as it could not hear it, was also without fault.