Antisocial behaviour


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Trafford Council (19 004 837)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 13-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr & Mrs C complain that the Council have failed to act against a neighbour who has failed to maintain their hedge. However, on the evidence the Ombudsman has seen there is no fault in how the Council considered this matter.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 002 569)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 09-Oct-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not investigate her noise complaint properly. Ms B says the noise from her neighbours' birds disturbs her sleep and reduces her and her parent's enjoyment of their home. I have not found fault with the Council.

  • Torbay Council (18 018 793)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 20-Sep-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not properly investigate her allegations of anti-social behaviour and has not agreed to implement suggestions she made about how it can improve its service. We found although the Council's overall decision on Ms X's complaint was an exercise of its professional judgement, the way it communicated its actions and a significant delay in dealing with her later complaint were fault. This caused Ms X an injustice in the form of frustration and the Council has agreed with the Ombudsman's recommendation to remedy this by apologising and making a payment to Ms X.

  • Wellingborough Borough Council (18 018 486)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 13-Sep-2019

    Summary: Miss B complains about the actions of the Council after a neighbour complained about noise and anti-social behaviour from her address. The Ombudsman finds that, except for the faulty installation of sound recording equipment which led to no injustice for Miss B, the Council's actions in this matter were not affected by fault.

  • 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.