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.

Antisocial behaviour

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Sheffield City Council (21 002 360)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 06-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council responded to his complaints of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance caused by a neighbour. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

  • Stroud District Council (20 012 746)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 30-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council mismanaged their complaints about a neighbour's anti-social behaviour. The Ombudsman has decided to uphold Mr and Mrs B's complaint due to the Council's failure to clearly communicate with them. This caused Mr and Mrs B distress, confusion and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs B, make them a payment and make several service improvements.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 179)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 22-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to act when he reported antisocial behaviour from one of his neighbours and wrongly closed the community trigger. The Ombudsman does not intend to find fault with the Council for how it considered the reports of anti-social behaviour. This is because the Council suitably considered the information under the community trigger.

  • Trafford Council (20 002 414)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 19-Nov-2021

    Summary: the complainant Mr X complained the Council did not deliver on a commitment to issue enforcement action or properly investigate complaints of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. The Council says it investigated the complaints but considered the noise did not meet the threshold of statutory noise nuisance. In its view the neighbour did not deliberately cause the noise to cause distress and so did not meet the threshold for anti-social behaviour. We found the Council acted with fault.

  • Brentwood Borough Council (20 007 588)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 15-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his complaints regarding noise and smoke pollution coming from his neighbour's property. He said this matter has caused him and his family stress and inconvenience. The Council was not at fault in how it responded to Mr X's complaint.

  • Leeds City Council (21 000 298)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 08-Nov-2021

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not do enough to prevent anti-social behaviour from her neighbours over the last several years. There was no fault in how the Council investigated Miss X's reports about noise nuisance or harassment since April 2020. However, there was fault in how the Council dealt with emails sent to absent staff and how it failed to provide information about the anti-social behaviour case review process. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X, pay her a financial remedy and process an anti-social behaviour case review application from her. It also agreed to review its procedures.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 804)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 25-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about a Councillor's objection to a planning application he had submitted and the Council's response to anti-social behaviour he reported involving his neighbours. The planning application was withdrawn by Mr X before a decision was made, therefore there is no injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. We do not find fault in the Council's response to the anti-social behaviour issue, it has assessed all the evidence available to reach a decision, and we cannot question a decision properly made.

  • Huntingdonshire District Council (21 002 179)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 20-Oct-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council dismissed her complaints about noise nuisance from her neighbours. Ms X also complained about how the Council officers handled her complaint. Ms X says the noise nuisance and the Council's actions caused her distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's decision about the existence of a statutory noise nuisance. The Ombudsman does not consider the fault by the Council through delays in responding to Ms X caused her a significant enough personal injustice to justify more than the apology the Council has already provided.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (21 000 522)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 14-Oct-2021

    Summary: Ms C complained about the way the Council responded when she reported issues with her neighbour. She said the Council failed to take action to stop the problem. We did not find fault with the Council.

  • Charnwood Borough Council (20 008 873)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 07-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action against his neighbours when he complained of anti-social behaviour and noise. The Council was not at fault for deciding to take no further action in relation to Mr X's complaints. It was at fault for failing to signpost him to the Community Trigger. The Council agreed to write to Mr X and apologise for the uncertainty this caused and appropriately signpost him to the Community Trigger process. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the Council's actions in relation to its handling of alleged tenancy breaches.