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:

  • Cheshire East Council (21 008 161)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 03-May-2022

    Summary: The Council correctly dealt with reports of anti-social behaviour but could have directed Mr B to the landlord of the property three months sooner. This did not cause any significant injustice, so we make no recommendations to the Council. The Council and landlord have worked together to improve Mr B's situation by installing a smoking shelter and screening at the neighbouring property, and vetting tenants to let more sensitively.

  • Westminster City Council (21 006 136)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 27-Apr-2022

    Summary: Ms T complains that the Council has not taken the necessary action to address her concerns about anti-social behaviour from a café near to her home. She says this is having a negative effect on her life and her property has been targeted by the perpetrators. We find fault because the Council did not signpost Ms T to the community trigger process, even though it should have for the number of reports of anti-social behaviour made by Ms T.

  • Dorset Council (21 003 328)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 27-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr C said the Council was at fault for failing to make his neighbour prune his hedge. The Council was not at fault. Any delays were not caused by the Council.

  • Thurrock Council (21 009 337)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 24-Apr-2022

    Summary: There is no general fault in how the Council investigated complaints of ASB both by, and against, the complainant. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the elements of Mr B's complaint relating to the Council's role as his landlord. We have therefore completed our investigation.

  • Leeds City Council (21 004 497)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 18-Apr-2022

    Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to complete a Community Trigger review, and it was not clear in its process or its communications with Mr X. He is disabled and in chronic pain. The Council's shortcomings caused him distress and frustration. The Council has reviewed its process and policy and has agreed to apologise to Mr X.

  • London Borough of Haringey (21 006 566)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 13-Apr-2022

    Summary: A complaint was made on behalf of Ms C who suffered disturbance from the occupier of a neighbouring flat, who moved into their property around November 2019. We found fault in the Council's response from November 2020 onward, when it became aware of this matter. This was because the Council failed to carry out an adequate investigation or take actions it promised. This loss of a service caused injustice to Ms C as well as causing her unnecessary distress, time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

  • London Borough of Bexley (21 017 559)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 04-Apr-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to act against her noisy neighbours. The Council says it will write to the complainant to ensure they understand what information is required and how this will be used. If a specific noise is relatively constant or predictable, it intends to visit the premises. We are satisfied with the Council's proposed actions.

  • West Lindsey District Council (21 007 140)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 27-Mar-2022

    Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Council. The Community Protection Notice served on a neighbour due to anti-social behaviour was not worded in a way that it was enforceable. In addition, when the Council got legal advice on the notice, it did not review or revise it to ensure that it was relevant to the anti-social behaviour complained about. The Council's apology and revision of procedures on wording and reviewing notices remedies the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (21 016 727)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 22-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled anti-social behaviour. We are satisfied with the actions it has taken.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 233)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 16-Mar-2022

    Summary: Miss C said the Council was at fault for the way in which it investigated a complaint about antisocial behaviour made against her by a neighbour. The Council was not at fault. It received a complaint and investigated it, as it was required to do.