Antisocial behaviour


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Liverpool City Council (20 001 107)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 11-May-2021

    Summary: Miss C complained the Council failed to properly respond and take appropriate action in response to her reports about the condition of her local area which has become a target for waste dumping and is unsightly and presents health and safety issues to residents. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • West Lancashire Borough Council (20 002 186)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 10-May-2021

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council did not properly respond or take appropriate action in response to his reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbours which he says was racially motivated. Mr C says he and his family suffered unnecessary upset, distress and anxiety. We have found fault by the Council in the time taken to provide a decision to Mr C but consider the apology it has already provided is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Trafford Council (20 007 430)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 21-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained that the Council agreed to remove fly-tipped items from its land behind his house in August 2020 but has failed to do so. We find no fault on the Council's part. It has monitored the site regularly and explained why it has not been practicable to remove the items until recently.

  • South Oxfordshire District Council (20 006 630)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 14-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to deal with the nuisance caused by her neighbour's private animal rescue sanctuary which she says causes odour problems and problems with flies and rats. The Council is not at fault in the way it responded to Mrs X's concerns and in the actions it took.

  • Hartlepool Borough Council (19 013 913)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 09-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr C says the Council failed to do enough to control antisocial behaviour by youths on his road. He says this caused him injustice because he was distressed by the disturbance. He also says officers were rude to him on the phone when he complained. The Council was not at fault for its actions taken to limit antisocial behaviour. It took action but did not have to take the actions Mr C wanted. The Council accepts that some officers provided a poor service to Mr C. This was fault. However, the Council apologised so no further remedy is required.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (20 003 839)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 08-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action when he complained of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. The Council was at fault when it fettered its discretion to consider the circumstances of Mr X's noise nuisance complaints. The Council should make changes to its policy to avoid similar fault occurring in future.

  • Bristol City Council (20 006 835)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 06-Apr-2021

    Summary: The Council sent correspondence to a third party about anti-social behaviour that contained information about Ms B's actions which the Council worded as fact rather than officer opinion. This was fault; the Council should have been clear it was officer opinion based on evidence but not a fact. This has upset Ms B. The Council will apologise, rectify its records and the correspondence to the third party, and remind relevant officers to be careful with the language used in records and correspondence.

  • Mid Sussex District Council (20 005 153)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 01-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council issued him with a Community Protection Warning for filming his neighbours. Mr X complained this Community Protection Warning shows on a Disclosure and Barring Service check. Mr X says the Council issuing a Community Protection Warning on him was distressing and frustrating since he was the victim of harassment from his neighbours. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for issuing Mr X with a Community Protection Warning.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 007 279)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 01-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to take effective action to resolve problems of anti-social behaviour from residents of a near-by traveller's site, which was causing her ongoing distress. We cannot find fault with the action taken by the Council.

  • 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.

Privacy settings

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.