Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice for littering. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to refuse to pay the fine and to argue his case in court if he wants to challenge it. The courts are better placed than the Ombudsman to consider this matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has wrongly issued him a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for littering. Mr X denies the offence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it is an offence to drop litter. Councils can issue FPNs to people who drop litter. A person can discharge their liability to prosecution for the offence of littering by paying the FPN. If a person does not pay the fine, the Council can start court proceedings for non-payment. The person who received the FPN can then defend those proceedings in court.
7. The Council has issued Mr X with an FPN for littering. It says it found a cardboard box with his name and address with other “abandoned rubbish”. Mr X has told the Council the box was delivered two months ago. He says nine other people live in his house and any of them could be responsible for the litter. Mr X has also explained he has health problems which have recently prevented him from leaving the house.
8. The Council has explained to Mr X there is no formal right of appeal against an FPN. But if Mr X disputes the offence, he can refuse to pay the FPN and present an argument at court in defence of any prosecution.
9. The Ombudsman’s role is to look for administrative fault. We cannot interpret the law or decide Mr X’s liability for the offence the Council says he has committed. If Mr X disputes the offence, it is reasonable for him to refuse to pay the FPN and present a defence in court. The court can decide if Mr X is guilty of the offence. This is a legal rather than an administrative matter and is not something the Ombudsman could make a finding on. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to refuse to pay the Fixed Penalty Notice and to argue his case in court if he wants to challenge the fine.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman