Antisocial behaviour

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Harrow (18 001 794)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 20-Feb-2019

    Summary: There was some fault in the Council's handling of a matters relating to a neighbour dispute, but it did not cause an injustice. And so the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (17 012 087)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 18-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to investigate complaints of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance. It failed properly to assess the vulnerability of the victims. Because of this it is not possible to know if the Council could have taken any action against the perpetrators. The Council failed to support the victims. The Council will apologise and pay the complainant £300. In future it will consider all evidence offered by a victim and keep the vulnerability of a victim under review.

  • Durham County Council (18 002 736)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 15-Feb-2019

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly respond to reports she made about fly tipping and littering within its agreed timescales. She was dissatisfied the Council would not take action against the perpetrators of littering or take preventative action or install CCTV cameras. Not all of Miss X's reports were resolved in the timescales DEFRA sets out, but we found overall the Council had responded appropriately. The Council has taken some of the preventative action Miss X wanted, and it explained why it had not installed CCTV.

  • London Borough of Southwark (18 010 227)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 14-Feb-2019

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council has not investigated her complaints about noise nuisance. The Council withdrew its noise monitoring service from Miss X more than two years ago. It has failed to properly review this decision as required by its policy. It has not explained this decision to Miss X. She has therefore been frustrated by continuing to send reports without acknowledgment or response. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and to review its decision about her access to the noise nuisance reporting service. It will write to Miss X to explain its decision and how it will continue to keep this under review.

  • Leeds City Council (18 006 467)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 11-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to her complaints of noise nuisance caused by her neighbour. We found fault as the Council delayed when responding to Ms X's complaint about the matter. But this fault did not cause Ms X an injustice and so we have completed our investigation.

  • Wakefield City Council (18 009 602)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 04-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her daughter that the Council has failed to take action about noise nuisance. The Council has investigated the complaints and installed noise monitoring equipment. The recordings do show noise but the Council's professional judgement is this is not at a level that would constitute a statutory nuisance. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Tendring District Council (18 006 034)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 31-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Council has properly investigated concerns about the use of a shop, and parking issues caused by customers of the shop.

  • London Borough of Ealing (18 008 105)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 29-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr R complains the Council failed to reply to requests for assistance with anti-social behaviour and vermin from surrounding properties. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • London Borough of Croydon (18 008 873)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 28-Jan-2019

    Summary: Ms D and her mother, Ms X complain that the Council did not deal effectively with antisocial behaviour. The Council investigated the complaints properly but failed to take proper account of the advice from Ms X's mental health professionals. The Council also applied a voluntary contract without Ms D's agreement and without explaining this fully to her. This caused Ms D and Ms X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms D and Ms X, clarify its actions and review its processes.

  • Cheshire East Council (18 003 471)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 21-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deal with noise and anti-social behaviour from her neighbour for around a two year period. The Council was not at fault. It took the steps I would expect it to have in investigating these issues and it properly considered the courses of action available to it. It took informal and formal action. In the absence of fault in the decision-making process, I cannot criticise the Council's actions.