West Lancashire Borough Council (20 001 339)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 21-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of action in response to his neighbours’ anti-social behaviour. We will not investigate this complaint, as it relates to events that occurred more than 12 months before Mr X complained to us. It is open to Mr X to complain to the Council, and then us, about more recent events.

Gedling Borough Council (20 000 854)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 08-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his report of suspected fly-tipping. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Luton Borough Council (19 012 646)

Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 08-Jul-2020

Summary: There was no substantive fault by the Council, in this complaint about a neighbour’s loft conversion. The Council did not give planning permission for the conversion, so it could not have consulted with the complainant. The trespass alleged by the complainant is a civil matter which does not involve the Council. The Council confused this complaint with another, which is fault, but it did not cause a significant injustice.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (18 011 678)

Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 03-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate noise nuisance reports and his complaints about this causing frustration and distress. While the Council did not send further diary sheets for Mr X to complete, it clearly explained how he should use its noise reporting line and Mr X did not do this regularly. The Council did not witness the noise and so was unable to take formal action. Delays in dealing with Mr X’s complaints are not due to fault by the Council.

Durham County Council (19 010 677)

Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 30-Jun-2020

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of her and her neighbour’s concerns about a high hedge in a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman is satisfied the Council did not prevent Ms B from making her own high hedge complaint when her neighbours did. The Council’s delay in formally notifying Ms B’s neighbours of the outcome of their complaint does not cause significant injustice to Ms B to warrant personal remedy. Ms B did not lose the opportunity to complain in her own right and has since done so successfully.

London Borough of Southwark (19 016 720)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 19-Jun-2020

Summary: Ms C complains about the actions of the Council associated with her application for a review of licenses for two bars near to her home. The Ombudsman has not investigated this complaint because it would have been reasonable for Ms C to have appealed to the Magistrate’s Court.

Pendle Borough Council (19 010 424)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 03-Jun-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to deal properly with her reports of anti-social behaviour from 2016. The complaint is largely outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Ms X complains late on the 12 month rule. There is no evidence of an ongoing problem.

Brentwood Borough Council (19 009 666)

Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 27-Apr-2020

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to respond properly and take timely action in response to her reports of noise from her neighbour’s dog. Ms C says she and her family have suffered distress and loss of sleep for longer than necessary and future legal proceedings may be adversely affected. The Ombudsman has found delay and other fault in the way the Council has dealt with this matter. The Ombudsman considers the agreed actions of an apology, £100 and procedural review provide a suitable remedy.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 010 154)

Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 31-Mar-2020

Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to investigate properly and take appropriate action in response to his reports of smoke nuisance. Mr C says he suffered from unacceptable levels of smoke and fumes which affected the amenity of his property for longer than necessary. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault.