Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s management of fly-tipping near his home and its handling of his complaint. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s management of fly-tipping near his home and its handling of his complaint. He says the fly-tipping makes the area unpleasant and unsafe, and the Council’s response has caused him stress and frustration. He wants the Council to apologise and take action to stop the fly-tipping, such as issue a formal letter to residents, put up signs, and increase patrols in the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X says he recorded 69 incidents of fly-tipping in his area across seven months. He complains that the Council:

• only cleans the area fortnightly;
• has not put up signs about fly-tipping in the area, or sent a letter to residents;
• relies on reactive action to fly-tipping reports, rather than taking proactive action; and
• did not request a witness statement from him when he had information about an incident, which prevented enforcement action.

5. In its complaint response, the Council said it has a team that clears fly-tipping, which is additional to its fortnightly street cleaning. It said its team clears fly-tipping within 24 hours of a report, and said it had increased its patrols which monitor fly-tipping in the area.
6. The Council also said it was designing new fly-tipping signage which it hoped to finalise a few weeks after its response. It said it would then install signs at hotspot locations.
7. The Council accepted it had not properly responded to all of Mr X’s fly-tipping reports. It said it found a few enquiries where it had not responded to Mr X, responded late, or not passed on his enquiries to all relevant teams for investigation. It apologised for this and said it would remind its relevant teams to ensure timely responses to enquiries.
8. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. It seems the Council has taken appropriate steps to investigate Mr X’s concerns, and it has explained what steps it is taking to address fly-tipping in the area. Where it has accepted fault, the Council has apologised and explained what action it has taken to address this. This is an appropriate response. It is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome.
9. Mr X also complains the Council delayed responding to his complaints about this matter.
10. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman