Environment and regulation


Recent reports in this category are shown below:

  • Slough Borough Council (24 017 484)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 10-Feb-2026

    Summary: We did not find fault in the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance. However, we found fault in the Council’s complaint handling due to delay and poor communication, which caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. We are satisfied the Council’s offered remedy is proportionate to the injustice caused and we do not recommend any further action.

  • London Borough of Merton (25 011 840)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 10-Feb-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about antisocial behaviour. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (25 012 665)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 10-Feb-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her noise nuisance complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X even if we did.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (25 013 697)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 10-Feb-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about missed recycling collections. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

  • Oxford City Council (25 014 093)

    Statement Upheld Refuse and recycling 09-Feb-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in waste bin provision. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken in response to the complaint. It apologised and reminded staff to prioritise future cases where there is good reason. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

  • Suffolk County Council (25 012 578)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Drainage 06-Feb-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to enforce drainage improvements on a neighbour’s property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Mrs X could seek a civil remedy in the courts if she believes the drainage poses a risk to her property.

  • London Borough of Islington (25 014 753)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 06-Feb-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that her property has been damaged by a Council-owned tree. This is because it is too late for us to investigate what happened more than 12 months before Mrs X brought her complaint to our attention. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of this issue in the last 12 months.

  • Dover District Council (25 018 558)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 06-Feb-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her reports of noise nuisance. Because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (25 004 116)

    Statement Upheld Refuse and recycling 05-Feb-2026

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council regularly missed bin collections after it approved a request to move a bin store area for the flats she lives in. The Council was at fault for not telling the residents there was a ten-metre limit for the crew to move the bins and for missing collections. This caused Ms X uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

  • Swale Borough Council (25 011 681)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 05-Feb-2026

    Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his queries about its investigation of a noise complaint about him. The Council has agreed to apologise for the injustice caused and review its process to ensure people subject to noise complaints are able to query the process. Also, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Officer if he believes the Council is withholding information that he has requested.

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.

Privacy settings