Antisocial behaviour archive 2020-2021


Archive has 68 results

  • 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.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (20 002 389)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 10-Mar-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has failed to stop a neighbour causing her nuisance, delayed serving an abatement notice, and failed to communicate with her properly. The Council took action and apologised to Ms X for not replying to some of her communications. There is no ongoing injustice and it is not a good use of limited public resources to investigate.

  • Plymouth City Council (20 005 196)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 04-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with his report of homophobic abuse. It failed to ensure these were referred on to the police. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. There was no fault in the way it dealt with his reports of noise or antisocial behaviour.

  • Runnymede Borough Council (20 003 773)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 01-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council failed to issue a decision notice to Mr B about his High Hedge complaint and tell him of his right to appeal its decision. This was not in accordance with the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. Mr B was unhappy with the outcome and lost his right to appeal the Council’s decision. Mr B had the time and trouble pursuing a complaint, which could have been avoided. The Council will refund the High Hedge fee, pay Mr B £100, and provide relevant officers with training and/or guidance to prevent future mistakes.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 333)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 25-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council did not immediately assess some noise recordings which were submitted by Mrs X to a duplicate account. This failing did not cause Mrs X any significant injustice. The Council properly dealt with Mrs X’s other reports of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (20 006 284)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council will not remove non-offensive graffiti on the highway. We do not find fault with the Council’s actions.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 088)

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

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s response to her complaints about anti-social behaviour in a dispute with her neighbours. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice.

  • London Borough of Haringey (20 009 840)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 17-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a notice warning against anti-social behaviour. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

  • Bracknell Forest Council (20 009 735)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 05-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his complaints of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (19 020 180)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 03-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council did not properly investigate Hate Crimes against him. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

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