Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his reports of fly tipping and the way it handled his complaint about this matter. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because, while there has been fault by the Council, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council delayed in removing fly tipped rubbish while telling him it had already been cleared. Despite his dissatisfaction with the Council’s response to his complaint, it did not escalate it to the second stage of its complaints procedure. This has left Mr X feeling frustrated and he has spent time and trouble pursuing matters.

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:

• 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 spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. In July and August 2019, using the Council’s website, Mr X reported fly tipping on a footpath he uses. In September, Mr X made a formal complaint, asking why the website showed the rubbish as having been cleared when it had not been and raising concerns around management and monitoring of the rubbish clearing contract.
5. In October the Council contacted Mr X to tell him the rubbish had been cleared. However, Mr X’s responded to say this was not the case and that it had not responded to his questions so he asked to escalate his complaint.
6. On 23 October, Mr X received an email which apologised for the delay in responding to him and advising that the contractors had informed the Council everything had been cleared. The email also advised that the contract monitoring officer would be contacted to monitor the area and ensure it is kept clean to the required standard. Mr X emailed back the same day with photos to show the rubbish had still not been cleared. He did not receive a response to this email.
7. The rubbish was finally cleared a couple of days later and Mr X confirms that since this time the footpath has been kept clear of rubbish.

Assessment

8. Having cleared the rubbish and apologised for its delay in communicating with him, the Council believed it had addressed his complaint and did not carry out a Stage 2 investigation. Mr X has been frustrated by this decision because he feels his concerns regarding management and the monitoring of contractors were not addressed.
9. The email sent to Mr X on 23 October did confirm monitoring would take place but did not fully address his concerns or explain why the Council had said the area had been cleared a number of times before the clearance actually took place.
10. While the lack of the Stage 2 response is noted, and that there was delay in the rubbish being cleared, I do not consider there are sufficient grounds to warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman or that we would achieve any useful outcome now the rubbish has been cleared and there have been no further problems to date.
11. Mr B feels the Council should be held to account for its failings and that an investigation should take place. However, we do not investigate every complaint we receive. We are a publicly funded body and have an obligation to use the funds allocated to us in an efficient, economic and effective manner and in this case neither the fault nor the injustice is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because, while there has been fault by the Council, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman