Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his report of suspected fly-tipping. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not respond adequately to his report of suspected fly-tipping and that he was not contacted when he made a complaint about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X. I gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. In April 2020 Mr X made a report to the Council of suspected fly-tipping made some distance from the main entrance of a local country park. The waste consisted of garden waste and plastic items. Included in the garden waste were leylandii cuttings which Mr X surmised had come from off site as there are no leylandii present within the area.
5. In pursuing matters, Mr X found that a CAST (Citywide Alliance Schools Training) group said it had started ‘brash’ piles. CAST had undertaken earlier work to clear an area of scrub land and planting beds. Added to this waste were leylandii cuttings which had been previously fly-tipped. Mr X says there were old and new leylandii cuttings. This waste was then moved to a car park ready for removal. The Council inspected the waste but deemed it to be green waste and took the view no offence had been committed.
6. Dissatisfied with the explanation he had been given, which he felt did not take sufficient account of the plastic waste present, Mr X took his complaint about the matter through the two stages of the Council’s complaints procedure.
7. In its stage two response the Council explained that the officer at stage one had not contacted him about his complaint because he had not needed any further clarification from Mr X about it. However, it said a subsequent email Mr X sent to the officer should have been acknowledged even though the officer had thought his pending response would address all the issues Mr X had raised.
8. The Council suggested the green waste likely included some plastic waste picked up during the clearing process. It upheld the decision that no offence had been committed, and that in the circumstances it would not be appropriate to consider a criminal investigation.

Assessment

9. The Council investigated the report of fly-tipping Mr X made but found no grounds to warrant further action. It provided an explanation of what had occurred and reasonably surmised that some plastic waste had been collected at the same time as the garden waste,
10. Mr X says he has spent time pursuing matters and that he feels aggrieved he was not contacted as part of the original investigation. However, in pursuing such matters there will always be some expenditure of time and the Council has previously explained that the officer dealing with the original complaint did not need further clarification from Mr X to be able to respond to him.
11. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says the lack of a proper examination of the waste has been ignored. His dissatisfaction with this and his view that the Council failed to investigate all avenues is noted. However, we are a publicly funded body obliged to use the funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic manner and it remains the case that neither the fault claimed by Mr X nor the injustice caused to him are sufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman