Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (20 005 475)

Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 30-Mar-2021

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s policy for investigating reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.

Hartlepool Borough Council (18 015 426)

Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 30-Mar-2021

Summary: We upheld part of Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his concerns about anti-social behaviour. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to take further action about the anti-social behaviour. However, there were faults in its communication with Mr X and it failed to tell him about the Community Trigger. The Council agreed to share information about the Community Trigger with Mr X. It will also update us on its progress towards promoting use of the Community Trigger.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 250)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 29-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to resolve noise problems which she reported about the flat below her. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We cannot investigate related tenancy matters which she complained about because we have no jurisdiction to investigate social housing landlords.

West Lindsey District Council (20 006 845)

Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 26-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council responded to his reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour. We find fault with the Council for failing to investigate Mr B’s complaint. This caused Mr B injustice. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice to Mr B.

Leeds City Council (20 012 262)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 26-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with his reports of serious threats, intimidation and harassment. This is because it would be reasonable for him to use the community trigger process.

North West Leicestershire District Council (20 006 166)

Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 22-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs P has complained about the Council failing to provide her the opportunity to make comments before it issued a remedial notice against her. However, there is a right of appeal against a remedial notice to the Planning Inspectorate. Mrs P used her right of appeal and so the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. The Ombudsman therefore has discontinued his investigation.

London Borough of Lewisham (20 010 735)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 18-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to respond properly to his complaints about the behaviour of his neighbour. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely an investigation by us would find fault and the police are better placed to deal with complaints about criminal activity.

Tandridge District Council (20 011 217)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 16-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complains about inaccurate information held on his Council housing file and which concerns events which took place in 2018. We do not propose to investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and because an investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome.

St Albans City Council (20 004 732)

Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 15-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her noise nuisance complaint. She says the Council has not investigated her complaints adequately and has not considered her recordings. We do not find fault with the Council’s actions.

Swindon Borough Council (20 011 564)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 11-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his report of fly tipping, and his claim the Council breached data protection matters. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault in how the Council dealt with the reported fly tipping, and because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with complaints about data protection.