Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging a private landlord for removing an accumulation of waste from his rented property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council charging him as a landlord for the removal of waste at a property which he rents to tenant. He says the Council did not give him sufficient opportunity to clear waste which it was unaware of on previous visits which were made. As a result, he says he was charged over £4,400 to remove an outbuilding full of waste which he was unaware of.

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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is the landlord of a property which he rents to a tenant. He has received previous notices from the Council about waste accumulated by the tenant on the site and in the past he has arranged for it to be removed privately. In January 2024 the Council wrote to Mr X and advised that there was an amount of rubbish on site and gave him 2 weeks to remove it or a notice would be served.
6. A Council officer visited the site and served a 24-hour notice under the under the Public Health Act 1936 if the waste on site was not removed. The notice stated that the owner would be charged for removal if it was not complied with.
7. The tenant says she told the officer about an outbuilding full of waste but she did not investigate it or take pictures until a second visit was made. Mr X was charged over £4,400 for removal of all the waste on site even though she says he was not aware of the outbuilding accumulation. He says the Council should only have charge for the visible waste and that the notice was misleading in what waste if referred to.
8. The notice which was served on 23 January referred to an accumulation of noxious matter on the premises. It was not specific and was not required to be other than identifying the address of the waste to be removed. It is clear from a statement provided that the tenant was aware of the accumulated waste in the outbuilding and that she was responsible for it. The charge was not made against her but the owner of the premises which is Mr X. as owner of the site Mr X was responsible for ensuring that waste did not accumulate , if necessary by enforcing the tenancy conditions.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. There is insufficient evidence of any fault on the Council’s part in issuing the notice and charging for removal. If he believes the charge is unreasonable Mr X would have to consider a legal challenge against it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging a private landlord for removing an accumulation of waste from his rented property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman