Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his requests for a litter pick alongside a road in his locale and its failure to refund solicitor costs he incurred in pursuing the matter. We will not investigate the complaint because it was Mr X’s decision to use solicitors and his personal injustice in relation to road cleansing is limited.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to his requests for a litter pick alongside a road in his locale and its failure to refund solicitor costs he incurred in pursuing the matter. He says the amount of waste collected by the Council on a second litter pick shows the first pick was inadequate and that he should not have had to have used a solicitor to prove his point that the Council is responsible for clearing ditches along the road.

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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council to request that it carry out a litter pick along a road in his locale.
7. The Council carried out a pick which Mr X considered to be only cursory, and he was told it appeared the Council was not responsible for clearing rubbish in the ditches along the roadside.
8. Mr X complained to the Council. At Stage 1 of the complaints procedure the Council said it would carry out a further litter pick but that it was responsible only for the verges and not the ditches, which fall under the ownership of the adjacent landowner. The Council invited Mr X to make contact if he was not satisfied with its response or if he had further queries so a way forward could be discussed.
9. Mr X used a solicitor to carry out an Index Map Search to confirm the extent of the highway and to prove his point that the Council was responsible for clearing the ditches. At Stage 2 of the complaints procedure he asked the Council to reimburse him for his solicitor costs because the Council had refused to carry out such a search. However, it told Mr X there is some ambiguity regarding the extent of the highway and that if he had contacted the Council to ask it to check the extent of the highway on its land records it would have done so. It also noted the full width of the highway including the ditch had now been cleaned.
10. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and we have an obligation to use the public funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic manner. While I note Mr X contacted the Council about rubbish accumulated along the road, he has not mentioned any significant personal injustice as a result of the Council’s failure to clear it. He did incur solicitor costs, but this was his decision to do so and came in advance of the completion of the Council’s complaints procedure and its invitation that he contact it if he was not satisfied with its initial response.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it was Mr X’s decision to use solicitors and his personal injustice in relation to road cleansing is limited.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman