Summary: The Council was at fault for delay dealing with Mr X’s neighbour’s fly-tipping and Mr X’s complaint. The Council apologised and made a payment. We are satisfied the Council remedied the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his report that a neighbour’s garden was overgrown and had fly-tipped rubbish which attracted pests. He also complained the Council delayed responding to his complaint. Mr X said this caused him distress and alarm.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. I considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. In Spring 2025, Mr X told the Council his neighbour (N) had fly-tipped rubbish in their overgrown garden and in the shared alley. He said it attracted vermin. Shortly after, Mr X complained the Council had not taken any action.
7. The Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. It said it had assigned a housing officer to work with N to clear their garden and the alley. The Council recognised it delayed contacting N. It apologised.
8. Mr X told the Council there was still rubbish in the alley and the garden. He said he had seen rats. He asked the Council to deal with his complaint at the second stage.
9. The Council emailed Mr X about six weeks later. It accepted it had delayed sending its stage two complaint response. It apologised. It said it would send a full response as soon as possible.
10. Two weeks later, the Council sent its stage two response. It said while it had done some work to clear the garden, it had not finished the works and the garden remained overgrown. The Council said N had been away which impacted its ability to engage directly with N. But it said this should not have delayed further clearance of the garden or its communication with Mr X. The Council said N had returned and it would work with N to resolve the issues.
11. The Council apologised for the inconvenience and frustration it had caused. It made a payment to Mr X of £100 for his time and trouble due to the delay handling his complaint. The Council told Mr X what action it would take to complete the works.
12. A few months later, the Council finished clearing the garden.

Analysis

Fly-tipped rubbish

13. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his report that a neighbour’s garden was overgrown and had fly-tipped rubbish which attracted pests. He said while the Council cleared the garden, it did not clear the alley. He also said the rubbish has started to accumulate again.
14. Mr X reported the issue to the Council in Spring 2025. Six months later, at the end of 2025, the Council finished clearing the garden. The Council explained to the Ombudsman that the neighbour (N) is vulnerable, there are several external agencies working with N, and the Council worked with those agencies to address the issue.
15. I find it was appropriate for the Council to take a balanced multi-agency approach. For this reason, I can understand that perhaps the Council could not act as swiftly as it would have liked. The Council is not at fault for taking this approach.
16. In its complaint response, the Council said that N had been away and this impacted its ability to work directly with N. However, it recognised that this should not have delayed clearing N’s garden or communicating with Mr X.
17. I find the Council at fault for this delay. This caused Mr X injustice because it caused uncertainty and frustration. The Council apologised. I consider this apology was an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the level of injustice caused by the delay.
18. Mr X complained the Council failed to clear the alley. The Council said it did not hear from Mr X after it finished its work to clear the rubbish at the end of 2025. I have seen Mr X’s report to the Council that more rubbish had been fly-tipped, but this was in Spring 2026, five months after the Council’s clearance.
19. I am not persuaded Mr X reported any remaining or further rubbish between the Council’s clearance at the end of 2025 and his report of new fly-tipping in Spring 2026.
20. Further to this, the Council said it offered to meet with Mr X at the end of 2025 to discuss his concerns further. It said it did not hear back from Mr X. For this reason, it did not take any further action. I do not find the Council at fault for this.
21. Since Mr X’s report in Spring 2026 of more fly-tipping, the Council has contacted Mr X to address his concerns. This is positive.

Complaint handling

22. Mr X complained the Council delayed responding to his complaint.
23. The Council accepted its stage two response was late. It wrote to Mr X to tell him its response was late and apologised. The Council’s stage two complaint response also apologised to Mr X for the delay. The Council made a payment to Mr X of £100 to remedy his time and trouble due to the delay handling his complaint.
24. The Council’s stage two response was several weeks late. This is fault and this caused Mr X injustice, because it cost him time and trouble. I have considered our published guidance on remedies, the length of the delay, and the level of injustice this caused. I find the Council’s apologies and payment were appropriate and proportionate for the level of injustice caused.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has remedied the injustice. For this reason, I have not proposed any further remedies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman