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:

  • 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.

  • London Borough of Hackney (21 003 344)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 15-Mar-2022

    Summary: the complainant Mr X complained the Council failed to use its legal powers to control nuisance caused by a neighbour using a firepit and barbeque creating noise, smoke, and odours. The Council says it took expert advice and liaised with the neighbour's social landlord but did not find evidence of a statutory nuisance or actionable anti-social behaviour. We found the Council acted without fault.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 005 331)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 11-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs V complains the Council has failed to investigate her complaints relating to noise and anti-social behaviour by her neighbour. She adds that this has meant she has lost the benefit to use and enjoy her property. We found the Council failed to investigate Mrs V's noise complaint, as legally required to do so. Further, there is no evidence the Council considered its legal obligations to investigate and reduce anti-social behaviour in Mrs V's community. These failings have caused Mrs V an injustice and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this.

  • Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council (21 003 477)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 09-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B says the Council does not support him despite being the victim of bullying and harassment by neighbours, instead it encourages complaints of anti-social behaviour about his household and does not deal with complaints his household makes. The Council is correct to investigate concerns it receives, regardless of the amount. It has not taken any unwarranted action against Mr & Mrs B. The Council failed to deal with concerns Mr & Mrs B raised, for which it has apologised, we recommend no further action. There was delay in its complaint investigation, but that was by agreement with Mr B. It was in communication with him throughout.

  • Worthing Borough Council (20 006 249)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 07-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to anti-social behaviour. This is because we are satisfied with the action the Council intends to take. It has agreed to carry out further investigation and consider how the issues impact Mr X.

  • Wiltshire Council (20 010 677)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 07-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr Y's complaint about its failure to investigate his reports of his neighbours' antisocial behaviour. It failed to show evidence of its antisocial behaviour officer's involvement, whether it considered if any of their behaviour might be actionable, and whether it considered any risk to him. It also failed to offer early mediation or show evidence of contacting other bodies such as the police for information. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 005 629)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 01-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Council's failure to follow its Community Trigger process in response to Ms X's request was fault. The Council has already taken satisfactory action to remedy the injustice caused.