Antisocial behaviour


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • Bristol City Council (18 019 206)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 12-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Council delayed acting to remove caravan and vehicle dwellers from a road where Mr C has a business. The Council failed to act to resolve concerns of anti-social behaviour, fly tipping and defecating in the street. The Council delayed dealing with Mr C's complaint and did not address all his issues. The Council failed to keep Mr C informed. Mr C worries about his livelihood due to the impact on his business from customers unable to park or not wanting to pass the vehicles and witness upsetting behaviour. The Council will apologise, pay Mr C £750, ensure to keep him updated, and deal with any future reports without delay.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 001 302)

    Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 03-Dec-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to prevent a noise nuisance from the neighbouring property being used by the Council as a children's home. Mrs X also complained the Council did not consult with her before opening the children's home. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault because it did not monitor the noise as it would normally do or consult properly with Mrs X. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a payment to her and refer her noise complaint to its Public Protection Department for further investigation and advice.

  • New Forest District Council (18 018 047)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 25-Nov-2019

    Summary: Ms D complains the Council has not taken action to help prevent a noise disturbance from cockerels that she and her partner have experienced since 2015. We do not uphold the complaint, finding the Council has investigated satisfactorily.

  • Bristol City Council (19 007 106)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 22-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate his complaint about noise properly. He said it gave him contradictory information. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.