Antisocial behaviour

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 010 154)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to investigate properly and take appropriate action in response to his reports of smoke nuisance. Mr C says he suffered from unacceptable levels of smoke and fumes which affected the amenity of his property for longer than necessary. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (19 008 978)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 25-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr C's reports about noise and anti-social behaviour from a neighbouring property.

  • Wiltshire Council (19 005 679)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 11-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr Y complained the Council has failed to act on reports of anti-social behaviour caused by his neighbour. The anti-social behaviour includes people leaving tree debris on verges, use of false road signs and people parking cars to partially block the road, causing a hazard. We have found the Council was not at fault.

  • South Cambridgeshire District Council (19 010 833)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 20-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman is unable to investigate how the Council dealt with Mrs C's reports of antisocial behaviour, due to ongoing court proceedings. There is, however, no evidence of fault in how the Council decided to issue a community protection warning notice to Mrs C.

  • South Kesteven District Council (19 006 989)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 12-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C say the Council is at fault for the way it has dealt with their claims that their neighbours were inconsiderate and noisy. They also say the Council accused Mr C of acting inappropriately without evidence. They say this caused them injustice in that they were upset. The Council was at fault for failures at the start of its investigation. Thereafter, it carried out a proportionate, evidence-based inquiry into Mr and Mrs C's concerns.

  • Shropshire Council (18 016 103)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 07-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Council failed to properly consider whether to take action to deal with fly-tipping on private and unregistered land. It also delayed responding to Mr B's emails and telephone calls. The Council has agreed to properly consider whether to take action to deal with the fly-tipping and review the way it deals with contact from residents.

  • London Borough of Ealing (19 005 997)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 06-Feb-2020

    Summary: There was minor fault in the Council's response to Mr B's official complaint which caused delay and frustration to him. There was no fault in the matter complained about, the Council's response to Mr B's request for out of hours noise monitoring.

  • London Borough of Bromley (19 007 717)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 03-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to her reports about noise from one neighbour and a rat infestation relating to another neighbour. The Council was not at fault.

  • Basildon Borough Council (19 005 443)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 20-Dec-2019

    Summary: Mrs J complains the Council failed to take enforcement action when she alerted it to a high hedge which causes her distress. We do not uphold the complaint. We find no or insufficient evidence of fault causing an injustice to Mrs J.

  • Westminster City Council (19 001 343)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 18-Dec-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly consider noise complaints she made. We found there were failings in the actions the Council took in response to Ms X's complaints. The Council failed to keep proper records and failed to investigate the source of the noise properly. The Council failed to issue an abatement notice after officers witnessed a statutory nuisance. The Council also failed to maintain the complainant's confidentiality. In addition, the officer subject to the complaint sent the initial complaint response. To recognise the failings the Council agreed it would apologise to Ms X and pay her £1,400. It also agreed to review its processes.