Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Haringey (17 009 756)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 09-Oct-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to address his complaint about a vibrating machine in his neighbour's property which is affecting his health. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • London Borough of Haringey (17 010 810)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 09-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a noise nuisance. This is because there is nothing we could add to the Council's response.

  • Cornwall Council (16 014 269)

    Statement Upheld Noise 02-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided that there was no statutory noise nuisance from Mr B and Miss C's neighbour. Or when it decided it would not take any further action for their anti-social behaviour complaints. But there have been some communication and complaint handling faults which the Council should apologise for.

  • Maldon District Council (17 008 138)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 02-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a noise abatement notice. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal to the magistrates' court and it is reasonable to expect him to have used it.

  • Hyndburn Borough Council (17 002 069)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 27-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Council has implemented the recommendations in a previous Ombudsman decision and produced a new noise management plan.

  • Eastbourne Borough Council (16 011 955)

    Statement Upheld Noise 27-Sep-2017

    Summary: there was some fault in the way the Council investigated Ms X's complaints about noise nuisance from building works at a neighbour's property following the service of an abatement notice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X for the frustration and uncertainty this caused.

  • Chelmsford City Council (16 017 608)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 26-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Council's actions in respect of reports of noise nuisance were not affected by fault, and the Council was not under a duty to seek a review of the licence for a music festival which resulted in complaints.

  • Coventry City Council (17 006 855)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 20-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly told the complainant it could take action against motorists sounding their horns outside his home. The complainant has not been caused injustice that warrants the Ombudsman's involvement.

  • London Borough of Enfield (16 018 105)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 11-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Council took appropriate steps to investigate Ms Z's complaint of neighbour noise nuisance.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (16 018 859)

    Statement Upheld Noise 29-Aug-2017

    Summary: Mr A complains the Council was wrong in law not to investigate his complaint about noise nuisance emanating from a car parked near his home under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There was no fault by the Council in not investigating Mr A's complaint further and as it has accepted that some wording in its guide for the public on reporting noise nuisance needs to be clarified and rewritten there are no grounds which warrant our further investigation of the complaint.