Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to fly-tipping close to Mr X’s home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council has failed to deal with fly-tipping in an alley behind his home. Mr X wants the Council to put an effective plan in place.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its responses to Mr X’s complaint the Council has said an officer visits the area each week. Fly-tipping when reported is cleared as quickly as possible. The Council has carried out letter drops, door-knocks, closes gates when left open, and takes enforcement action when possible. The Council has considered adding the area to the waiting list for mobile CCTV, but decided against this as it is most effective when waste is dumped from vehicles. This did not apply to the waste being left behind Mr X’s house.
6. While I understand Mr X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation into his complaint.
7. It is not our role to say how councils should use their limited resources. Also, we can only criticise a council if there was some clear fault or flaw in its actions. Failing to give someone the outcome they want does not always mean a council has acted with fault.
8. In this case, the Council has provided proportionate and reasonable responses to Mr X’s complaints and his reports of fly-tipping. It has set out the steps it is taking to deal with the fly-tipping. Ultimately though it is the perpetrators, not the Council, who are responsible for the issue complained about. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with the reports of fly-tipping for us to become involved. If we investigated, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman