Antisocial behaviour

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (17 018 540)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 03-Jun-2019

    Summary: There was some delay in the Environmental Health Departments response to complaints about noise. The injustice has already been remedied, as the Council is arranging to install sound insulation and has made a financial payment in response to a previous complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.

  • London Borough of Croydon (18 013 019)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 31-May-2019

    Summary: Mr C says the Council failed to properly investigate or take action on his complaint about noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour and failed to follow its complaints procedure. The Council delayed beginning an investigation, failed to keep Mr C up-to-date and was unclear in its communications with him. That led him to having to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint and raised his expectations. There is no fault in the Council's decision not to take further action though. An apology to Mr C and small payment is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (18 014 342)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 29-May-2019

    Summary: Miss B complained that the Council failed to investigate properly and adequately address problems she reported of noise from slamming doors in the neighbouring house. There was fault by the Council in its handling of Miss B's complaints and a lack of clarity about the action it was taking but that has not affected the decisions it made about the noise from the doors. The remedy the Council has already offered is sufficient.

  • Manchester City Council (18 009 157)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 29-May-2019

    Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had not done enough to deal with antisocial behaviour of rough sleepers in his area. Places close to his home had become unsanitary and unsafe. There was no fault by the Council. It has investigated Mr B's complaints fully and responded with a variety of targeted and specific actions.