Antisocial behaviour


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Worcester City Council (18 019 690)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 09-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to enforce a remedial notice it served on her neighbour requiring him to reduce the height of hedges at his property. We found fault because the Council wrongly identified the type of hedge to be cut and the timescales involved. But this fault did not cause Mrs X an injustice and so we are completing our investigation.

  • Norwich City Council (18 006 823)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 28-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X has complained about how the Council investigated his reports of excessive noise from the property below his. He also says the Council did not deal with his complaint in line with its policy. There is no fault with how the Council investigated concerns about a possible statutory nuisance. There is some fault with how it dealt with Mr X's complaint.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 016 297)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 27-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council has failed to act on the evidence they provided alleging their neighbour has breached a court injunction. They say this failure has causing them to suffer continued distress because of the neighbour's ongoing behaviour. The Council has considered their evidence alongside other evidence and decided the evidence is not sufficient grounds to take further action. There was not fault in how it made this decision, or its decision regarding planning enforcement.

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (18 015 400)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 17-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains that the Council did not deal properly with a complaint about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. The Council was at fault because it did not make a proper assessment of the problems Mr B complained about and it did not fully investigate or respond to his complaint properly. Mr B is uncertain about whether the Council may have been able to take additional action to try and resolve his complaint. The Council has said it will review how it handled his complaint. It should also apologise to Mr B, pay him £150 for his time and trouble in making his complaint and investigate Mr B's ongoing concerns about noise.

  • Braintree District Council (18 012 050)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 04-Jul-2019

    Summary: The complainants say the Council has not responded properly to their complaints about neighbour nuisance. The Ombudsman finds the Council's failure to review its approach was fault. This caused an injustice. We have made a recommendation to remedy this and asked the Council to review its processes.

  • London Borough of Ealing (18 013 075)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 24-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council has dealt with anti-social behaviour on his road caused by fly-tipping, drug dealing and late-night noise. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council in its response to Mr X's reports. Also, decisions around the deployment of a CCTV camera and where to target most of its street cleaning resources are ones it is entitled to take having considered the alternatives.

  • West Dorset District Council (18 017 908)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 23-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council managed the Community Trigger process for considering a report he made about anti-social behaviour. I have discontinued this complaint, because The Community Trigger process falls under the remit of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP), a multi-agency body. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions or decisions of the CSP.

  • South Kesteven District Council (18 011 512)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 21-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mrs C complains about the way the Council dealt with her reports of noise and other nuisance from her neighbour which led her to move home with all the associated upset and costs. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Rother District Council (18 014 348)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 13-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly investigated his complaints about noise and odour nuisance and planning irregularities relating to a restaurant next door. He says it has not properly assessed the nuisances and dismissed his planning concerns until he paid for legal advice and a surveyor at his own cost which proved otherwise. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for giving Mr X incorrect information about a breach of planning control and for its failure to deal with the absence of officer properly. This caused significant frustration and put him to the time and trouble of complaining. The Ombudsman recommends the Council should remedy this by apologising and making a financial payment to Mr X.

  • Nottingham City Council (18 013 516)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 05-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the actions of the Council after he reported noise disturbance from a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in this matter and in its complaint handling. That led to injustice for Mr B for which a remedy has been agreed.