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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Carlisle City Council (19 014 678)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 26-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs D says the Council delayed investigating and failed to take enforcement action relating odour nuisance from a food outlet. The Ombudsman has found evidence of delay but no significant injustice. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

  • Allerdale Borough Council (20 007 389)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 22-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains there were failings and delays in the way the Council responded to his request for assistance in resolving the possible contamination of his private drinking water supply. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters and so have completed our investigation.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 007 313)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 09-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council missed refuse collections from a site it owns resulting in rats at her property. The Council was at fault for failing to investigate or respond to Mrs X's allegations about the matter. It has agreed to apologise for the avoidable frustration that caused her and contact Mrs X to see if there is still an issue with rats at her property.

  • London Borough of Havering (20 001 995)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 16-Apr-2021

    Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her complaint about her neighbours burning items in their garden. She said the fumes negatively affected her family's sleep and heath. The Council was at fault for its poor communication and delays in acting on the evidence Miss X provided. The Council admits a failure in service. It has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide a better service to remedy Miss X's injustice.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 000 525)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 11-Mar-2021

    Summary: The evidence does not show noise and pollution suffered by the complainant has come about because of fault by the Council, and so we cannot uphold this complaint. We also cannot make findings on his complaint about unsafe working practices, or damage to his property. However, the Council should have made more effort to communicate with residents, and this has caused the complainant an injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (20 004 939)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged the Council failed to take enforcement action against light pollution from a football stadium.

  • Broadland District Council (20 008 563)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate complaints about statutory noise and pollution nuisance from his neighbour since 2009. Mr X says this caused he and his family physical and mental stress due to noise from machinery and inhalation of smoke from large fires. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's actions.

  • Rugby Borough Council (20 002 659)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 15-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained the Council failed to properly respond and take appropriate action in response to their reports of nuisance from dust from the use of a neighbouring area of land as an overflow car park. Mr and Mrs C explained they could not enjoy their garden or open their windows and their property and car were regularly covered in dust. We have found fault by the Council in not investigating whether a statutory nuisance was being caused. We consider the agreed actions of an apology and an assurance about how future reports will be treated is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Scarborough Borough Council (19 019 720)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 05-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr Y complains about the way the Council responded to his reports of asbestos in a local holiday cottage. In our view, and based on the information available, we find the Council acted quickly and in line with its enforcement policy and Health and Safety Executive guidance to assess the reported risk. It reached a conclusion which Mr Y disagreed with, but the Ombudsman has no grounds to challenge the merits of that decision.

  • London Borough of Hackney (19 020 025)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 28-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of his reports about nuisance from communal lighting in flats near his home and the Council's consideration of his subsequent complaints. We have found some evidence of fault by the Council and recommended it apologises to Mr X. The Council agreed. We do not consider the fault affected the Council's decision the lighting does not amount to a statutory nuisance.