Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to adequately monitor and enforce waste management offences. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. It is also reasonable for Ms X to use the legal remedy available to her.

The complaint

1. Ms X says there are severe waste management issues in around a station she regularly uses, about 200-300 yards from her home. These include fly tipping, overflowing bins and dirty pavements. She says she has complained to the Council, but it has failed to provide adequate provision for waste disposal and adequate monitoring and enforcement for offences.
2. Ms X says this is creating a very unpleasant environment for members of the public and she would like the Council to establish an effective and modern approach for managing waste.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)
4. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint provided by Ms X and the correspondence exchanged with the Council; and
• issued a draft decision inviting Ms X to reply; and
• considered Ms X’s response to my draft decision

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms X says she made a formal complaint about the severe waste issues in June 2019.
7. In August 2019 Ms X wrote to the Council to say the severe waste issues around a train station she uses were continuing and that she felt a site visit would be useful. Ms X then advised she thought the issues could be resolved by ensuring all residential and commercial properties in the area had enough waste storage and disposal facilities. She also suggested the Council installed CCTV for monitoring and for the council to fine offenders.
8. The Council responded to say it was trying to arrange an on-site meeting with her, local councillors, representatives from the service and an officer from the Council.
9. On 14 November 2019 the Council responded to a further complaint Ms X had made about the lack of communication by the Council. In its response the Council apologised for not keeping Ms X updated following the site visit it had carried out on 27 September 2019 with Ms X present.
10. The Council went on to set out the actions it had taken during this visit. The actions included issuing fixed penalty and other legal notices and investigating the issues Ms X had raised.
11. It concluded by saying it would continue monitoring the area and a dedicated ward officer would visit as part of the route patrols. It also advised it had asked the highways team to increase the number of litter bins and that a Fly Tip Task Force Team would also monitor the location for fly tipping and littering.
12. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint and apologised for the delay.
13. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) Section 89 imposes a duty on the Council to ensure the highway or road is so far as is practicable, kept clean.
14. The Council dealt with Ms X’s complaint about poor waste management and fly tipping issues by investigating and fining offenders. It also assigned a dedicated officer who will continue monitoring the area. The Council acted on Ms X’s concerns, so it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find it at fault.
15. Ms X says this is not enough and has provided photographs to support her complaint. However, we cannot question whether a Council’s response is adequate just because the complainant disagrees with it.
16. The EPA 1990 Section 91 also gives a complainant the right to take the Council to the magistrates court if they are unhappy about the cleanliness of any highway. Therefore, it will be reasonable for Ms X to take this to court so it can decide if the Council’s actions meet its statutory duty.
17. I appreciate the Council accept it delayed communicating with Ms X about the steps it had taken following a site visit. However, it would not be a good use of public money to investigate a delay in communication if we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman