Ok, so from my research so far, I am looking at one angle in particular.

1) A previously published case by the Ombudsman concerned a woman who was issued with an ASBO after an application from her Council based on the allegations of one of her neighbours.

Given the opportunity to defend herself, she was able to disprove the allegation, and the Council was... we'll say reprimanded.

2) My neighbours diaries can be presented as evidence in court at any future eviction hearing in relation to the allegations made against us. Their weight as evidence will be considerably lessened however, as my neighbour MUST turn up in court as a witness AND he can be cross examined. I would also be given the opportunity to present our evidence which is contrary to his claims. And in a court of law, we are both equal. Plus, I have more witnesses.

3) We are not both equal before the Council. I suspect, but cannot prove, that their handling of our case has been driven by three factors.
(a) That Councils can and have been successfully prosecuted for failing to adequately deal with antisocial behaviour.

(b) That there remains no adequate form of redress for those who are subject to aggressive handling on the part of the council, regardless of the validity (or lack, thereof) of the allegations made against them or how much distress it may cause.

(c) That there are no checks on Council Officers to behave honestly and impartially, given the above, and given that many of them will be looking to make their jobs appear indispensable in these times of big budget cuts when many public sector employees will face redundancy.

4) The Ombudsman has indicated his decision is based on legislation found in The Environmental Protection Act 1990, The Housing Act 1985, and The Housing Act, 1996. These pieces of legislation deal with the allegation as if it were true, and I believe I should quote some things back at him:-

Protection from Eviction Act, 1997:

(3)If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises—

(a)to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof; or

(b)to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof;

does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(we were refused help from the environmental protection unit in the form of monitoring equipment due to budget constraints, not given advice from the dog warden which was requested many times, not given the opportunity to defend ourselves/evidence was ignored, refused mediation in the first instance, which was only granted after the intercession of an elected official)

PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT 1997
1. Prohibition of harassment.

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

(See note above. In addition, we weren't advised of any involvement by the council until mid-february, and by the end of the month, we had received a Caution for breach of tenancy conditions.)

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Article 5: Right to Liberty and Security (I have been unable to leave the house)
Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (I have been prevented from defending myself)
Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life
Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination (The threat of eviction can only be made to Council tenants. That's discrimination based on social status.)

5) If the aforementioned Mrs A had been a council tenant, then I suspect her Council would not have applied for an ASBO, but would have treated her the same way as we have been treated, and threatened her with eviction.

Regardless of if an accusation of criminal behaviour is played out in a court or not, if consequences are involved that cause distress to a person(s) due to their encroachment on Human Rights, they must have the opportunity to defend themselves.

Ok... thoughts over. I think the solicitor is going to shake his head at me. :/