Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate several incidents of fly-tipping on his land. He also complained the Council wrongly deemed him to be a vexatious complainant, and issued him with a Community Protection Warning. Mr X said this caused distress and worry. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained the Council failed to investigate several incidents of fly-tipping on his land. Mr X said this was because he believed the person involved is related to a Council officer. Mr X complained the Council wrongly deemed him to be a vexatious complainant and has issued him with a Community Protection Warning.
2. Mr X said this caused distress and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Fly-tipping

7. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives councils powers to require occupiers and landowners to remove waste unlawfully deposited on land (known as ‘fly-tipping’). Councils are responsible for waste that has been fly-tipped on ‘relevant’ land. ‘Relevant land’ means land that is open to the air on at least one side, is under the council’s direct control, and is publicly accessible (with or without payment).

The Council’s vexatious complaints policy

8. The Council’s vexatious complaints policy defines vexatious complainants as complainants that are unreasonable and unreasonably persistent. This policy gives the Council powers to limit or restrict communication from certain complainants.
9. The policy says the decision whether a complainant is vexatious or not will be made by a member of the management team. The policy sets out the different options the Council can use to manage a complainant’s unreasonable behaviour. This includes limiting the number and duration of calls, requiring a complainant to communicate with only one staff member, and refusing to register and process further complaints about the same matter.
10. The policy says that where the Council decides a complainant is vexatious, the Corporate Feedback Co-ordinator will write to the complainant with a copy of the policy. They will explain the reason the Council made its decision, what it means for future contacts, how long any restrictions will last, and what the complainant can do to have the decision reviewed. The policy says the Council should specify a date when it will review the restrictions.
11. Complainants have a right to challenge the Council’s decision on any restrictions applied under this policy. The Council’s Senior Solicitor will review the case to determine whether the decision to invoke the policy was correctly taken and/or whether any particular restrictions applied are justified. The Senior Solicitor will aim to complete the review within two months. After completing the review, they will write to advise the complainant of the outcome and, if restrictions are to continue, the date they will next be reviewed.

Community Protection Warnings

12. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced new powers for agencies involved in tackling anti-social behaviour. This includes the power to issue Community Protection Notices (CPNs).
13. Councils and police can issue CPNs to prevent anti-social behaviour which is having a negative effect on the community's quality of life, and which they decide is unreasonable. CPNs require the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to ensure it is not repeated. Failure to comply is an offence, and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice.
14. Councils must issue a written warning in advance of the CPN. This is called a Community Protection Warning (CPW).

What happened

15. In January 2022, Mr X told the Council there had been two incidents of fly-tipping on his land. The Council began investigating these allegations.
16. In May, Mr X complained about the actions of a neighbour he suspected of fly-tipping, and asked the Council questions. The Council said it would not answer Mr X’s questions because of an ongoing investigation. Mr X replied, asking the same questions. The Council said it was not pursuing Mr X’s concerns any further because it was not considered proportionate or in the Council’s best interests. It said it had closed its fly-tipping investigation.
17. In June, Mr X formally complained to the Council. A few weeks later, Mr X alleged that there had been two more fly-tipping incidents on his land.
18. Shortly after, the Council sent its complaint response to Mr X. It said it had reviewed its correspondence with Mr X and would not respond any further on the fly-tipping matter. It said it would investigate his most recent fly-tipping reports.
19. The Council said it was concerned it had received a lot of communication from Mr X involving a number of different Council officers. It explained why it could not share the information Mr X requested. The Council said if Mr X persisted with the matter, it would have no alternative but to recommend any future correspondence be considered under its vexatious complaints policy.
20. The following week, the Council told Mr X that it did not view his latest two reported incidents as ‘fly-tipping’. It explained its reasons for its decision. It said it believed these were more instances linked to a long-standing and ongoing neighbour dispute. The Council offered mediation. Mr X’s response was unpleasant.
21. In July, the Council wrote to Mr X. It said it had previously told him the fly-tipping matter was closed and that any more requests for information on the matter would be considered vexatious. It said Mr X had continued to persist with the same issues. It noted the frequency and content of his repeated information requests and complaints. It therefore considered Mr X vexatious.
22. The Council said it would review its decision in 12 months. The decision was made by a director. The Council gave Mr X contact details for a single point of contact, told him how to challenge the decision, and sent him a copy of the policy.
23. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision that he was a vexatious complainant.
24. In August, the Council issued Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) to Mr X and some other individuals. The Council said police asked it to act on concerns about Mr X’s behaviour towards certain individuals. It detailed Mr X’s behaviour and the steps he needed to take to prevent any further action being taken. It explained the consequences of breaching the warning.
25. Later that month, the Council sent Mr X its review of its decision that he was a vexatious complainant. The Council said its decision was correct and the restrictions should continue. It confirmed it would review the restrictions in July 2023.
26. The Council said it had reviewed Mr X’s correspondence. It said the decision and restrictions were justified because of the volume of correspondence repeating the same complaints, refusing to accept Council decisions, and unfounded complaints against staff trying to deal with the issue.
27. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Fly-tipping

28. Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate several incidents of fly-tipping on his land (which is private land). Mr X said this was because he believed the person involved in fly-tipping is related to a Council officer. He also said the Council did not seek enough evidence in its investigations.
29. I find that the Council investigated Mr X’s reports of fly-tipping. I find the Council dealt with Mr X’s reports properly and proportionately. I note that Mr X’s land is private land, which is not classed as ‘relevant land’ under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
30. Mr X complained the Council did not notify him of its decisions not to investigate the reported incidents.
31. I do not agree. I find the Council notified Mr X of its decisions regarding the fly-tipping allegations in May and June 2022.
32. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Being deemed a vexatious complainant

33. Mr X complained that the Council wrongly deemed him to be a vexatious complainant.
34. I have considered the way the Council decided that Mr X was a vexatious complainant, how it notified him, its review of its decision, and how it communicated that to Mr X.
35. I find the Council made its decision in line with its policy. I also find the Council’s other actions regarding this decision and how it was communicated to Mr X were in line with the policy. The Council is entitled to make this decision and to restrict contact from certain complainants.
36. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Community Protection Warning

37. Mr X complained the Council issued him with a Community Protection Warning (CPW). He said there is no reason for him to be put on a CPW.
38. I have considered the Council’s reasons for issuing Mr X with a CPW. I find the Council issued the CPW in line with the law. The Council is entitled to issue a CPW.
39. Therefore, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman