Noise


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Bristol City Council (16 010 282)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 03-May-2017

    Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council has investigated Ms B's complaints of noise nuisance in her block of flats.

  • London Borough of Bromley (15 018 480)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 02-May-2017

    Summary: There was no fault with the Council's investigation of noise nuisance complaints about a local airport.

  • London Borough of Camden (16 010 222)

    Statement Upheld Noise 26-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault in the way it responded to Mr X's complaints about noise from a neighbour. It also failed to fully investigate his complaint about the poor service. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £200, and confirm to the Ombudsman how it has resolved problems with the out of hours noise service.

  • Allerdale Borough Council (16 007 566)

    Statement Upheld Noise 25-Apr-2017

    Summary: I uphold this complaint about the way the Council responded to reports of wind farm noise. I have found evidence of fault by the Council but cannot assess at this stage if any injustice requires a remedy.

  • London Borough of Newham (16 010 544)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 18-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Council has followed the law and its policy when investigating and taking action following complaints of nuisance. Personal visits by officers have not witnessed the level of nuisance the complainant says exists. The Council wants to install a noise recorder. The complainant has refused this. The complainant can refuse the recorder but this does not mean the Council has to provide a different way of investigating the complaints.

  • Breckland District Council (16 016 335)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 13-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's decision to stop responding to his correspondence about a noise nuisance issue. This is because Mr B's complaint is late and there are not good reasons to investigate now.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (16 002 489)

    Statement Upheld Noise 11-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Council did not properly investigate or take effective enforcement action for noise nuisance from unauthorised air conditioning units on the roof of an industrial building near Mr F's home. The units cause high levels of continuous noise in Mr F's home above recommended levels. The Council's also failed to keep a proper record of its actions on its enforcement cases including the reasons for the decisions it made. It failed to investigate whether fumes and noise from diesel generators in the building caused a statutory nuisance. It also dealt poorly with his complaints about the matter. The Council had already agreed to take some actions to remedy the injustice. The Council has now also agreed to apologise to Mr F and pay him £750. The Council has now considered whether the diesel generators cause a statutory nuisance.

  • West Dorset District Council (16 012 287)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 10-Apr-2017

    Summary: the Council was not at fault for how it handled complaints of noise and odour from a business premises.

  • London Borough of Camden (16 010 270)

    Statement Not upheld Noise 10-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mr A complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaints of noise nuisance caused by the extraction system of a restaurant adjacent to his home. There is no evidence of fault by the Council but we asked it to consider further investigating the noise and it has agreed to do so.

  • Melton Borough Council (16 003 512)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 10-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's delay in dealing with his noise complaints. Mr X's complaints about the Council's inaction until 2015 are late and there is nothing further we can achieve by investigating its handling of the current noise complaint, now.

;