Antisocial behaviour


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • West Dorset District Council (17 004 489)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 17-Nov-2017

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X's complaints of noise nuisance from his neighbour.

  • New Forest District Council (17 002 836)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 15-Nov-2017

    Summary: Miss X says the Council failed to deal with her reports of anti social behaviour and noise nuisance. I stopped the investigation because the Council mainly dealt with Miss X's concerns as a landlord, taking its actions outside the Ombudsman's legal powers. The Council also provided evidence to show the tenant Miss X complained about had moved.

  • London Borough of Haringey (17 002 225)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 15-Nov-2017

    Summary: There was fault in how the Council investigated reports of alleged damage to bins and threatening behaviour towards its staff by Mr X. The Council gave Mr X no opportunity to respond to those reports and allegations, and informed his landlady Miss Y of them as if they were proven, which was fault. The Council falsely accused Mr X of threatening behaviour, which was fault causing him a significant personal injustice.

  • London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (16 001 233)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 13-Nov-2017

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not taken action about the noise nuisance and anti social behaviour she says she suffers from her neighbours. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council's actions.

  • Durham County Council (17 005 612)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 07-Nov-2017

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the Council's lack of policy regarding high hedges and its communication with them about its actions. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault. However there was a delay in the Council's response to correspondence and to the complaint and the Council has apologised for the delay.

  • Leicester City Council (17 005 137)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 07-Nov-2017

    Summary: Mr B considers that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to deal with noise and nuisance caused by balls striking the fence at the rear of his home and landing in his garden. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council responded to Mr B's concerns.

  • North Hertfordshire District Council (17 003 676)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 06-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mrs H's complaint that the Council failed to act on her reports of antisocial behaviour in the tennis court to the rear of her home. The Council investigated her reports and decided there was not enough evidence to justify taking any further action.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (16 008 829)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 03-Nov-2017

    Summary: the Council delayed referring concerns about the state of a garden to its environmental health department. Payment of £250 is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Dover District Council (17 005 486)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 02-Nov-2017

    Summary: Mr X and his mother, Mrs Y, complain about the way the Council handled their complaints concerning a high hedge belonging to their neighbour, Mrs Z. The Ombudsman has completed his investigation because he finds no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the complaints.

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (17 001 377)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 25-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled accusations of anti-social behaviour. This is because the lack of evidence available means it is unlikely we would find fault.

;