Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to littering and fly-tipping in one of its districts. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, the alleged fault has not caused Mrs B a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs B, complains about the way the Council deals with litter and fly tipping in a district which she drives through on her way to work. Mrs B says residents leave litter on the pavements, in addition to rubbish and large items which are left by litter bins. Mrs B says the Council’s contractor wrongly removes this rubbish regularly throughout the week. Mrs B says the Council’s approach sends the wrong message to residents and is a waste of council tax money. Mrs B also says the Council does not provide this service in other districts where residents are expected to dispose of their waste responsibly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 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 Mrs B.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mrs B’s complaint, the Council’s refuse contractor said:
• This district is a priority area which is cleaned three times a week because it is a hotspot for litter and fly tipping.
• It is doing its best to keep this area clean and works proactively with local businesses.
• It educates children in schools and supports community groups who help keep the city clean.
• It is unable to monitor the usage of every bin throughout the city, but Mrs B may contact the Council’s Environmental Protection Service if she has information which may help identify individuals who commit fly-tipping offences.
6. The Council’s contractor has explained the approach it has taken to tackle littering and fly-tipping in this district. Mrs B disagrees with this approach. But, this is a decision for the Council and its contractor to make. It is not our role to say the Council should be using different methods to tackle the problem.
7. Also, we must focus our investigations on complaints where the person making the complaint has suffered a significant or serious injustice because of the alleged fault. I find Mrs B has not suffered a significant injustice because of the alleged fault by the Council. Mrs B does not live in this district and is not significantly affected by the Council’s approach to waste management in this area.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, the alleged fault has not caused Mrs B a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman