Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to resolve his concerns about shops leaving refuse collection bins on the public highway and in parking bays. He says the bins often overflow, which attracts fly tipping. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mr X’s concerns and for its communication with him. This caused him frustration and upset. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to him and complete a detailed review of the issues.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to resolve his concerns about shops leaving refuse collection bins on the public highway and in parking bays. He says the bins often overflow, which attracts fly tipping. He also says the Council has failed to maintain the green areas by the bins.
2. Mr X says the Council’s inaction has led to a rat infestation in the area and it has had a huge impact on health and safety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Environmental Protection Act 1990

7. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the Act) 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).
8. Councils can investigate allegations of fly-tipping in various ways such as taking witness statements, visiting the location and voluntarily obtaining CCTV footage. Depending on what the evidence shows, councils can decide to remove the fly tipped waste themselves or can issue formal notices requiring the person responsible to remove the waste. Councils should also consider taking action to prevent reoccurrence of problematic fly tipping.

What happened

9. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
10. Mr X lives near to shops. The shops store their bins in the car park close to Mr X’s home. Mr X contacted the Council in January 2024 and reported overflowing rubbish from the bins.
11. The Council responded and said the area fell within the boundaries of private property. Therefore, it could not assist. Mr X responded and said the area was a public car park. The Council responded and said it misread the case. It said it had asked the contractor to attend the site.
12. Mr X sent a follow up email to the Council and asked why it had marked the case as resolved. He said there was still rubbish on the ground and behind the bins. He asked it to attend the site again. The Council provided an update the following day and said its crew had removed the rubbish.
13. Mr X sent a further email and said the crew had not completely removed the rubbish. As the Council did not respond, Mr X sent two chaser emails. The Council responded and said it was private land. It told him to contact the commercial bin company. Mr X emailed the Council and local councillors. He said the land was public land. He said there was fly tipping and rubbish behind the bins.
14. A councillor responded and said the bins were commercial waste and not the responsibility of the Council. He said he could ask the owner to clear the rubbish properly. Mr X responded and said he understood the bins were not the Council’s responsibility. However, the fly tipping on public land was the Council’s responsibility. He said rats were now coming in and out of the bins.
15. After a chaser email from Mr X, the Council responded in late February and said its team would visit the site and clear the rubbish. It also said it would pass the matter onto its enforcement team so officers could advise traders to put the bins in the right place.
16. An environmental health officer (EHO) visited the businesses in mid-March. He said most businesses had put sufficient measures in place. However, the main source of the rats was the shrubbery near to where the bins were kept. He also noted someone had dumped rubbish bags. He suggested a lockable bin storage area for the residential flats/wheelie bin users and for officers to tidy up the green area. He sent the email to the highways and the waste teams. As he did not receive a response from either team, he closed the file.
17. Mr X emailed the Council in late March and said after one week of compliance the issues had started again. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s email.
18. An EHO visited the area in late April. They witnessed rats around the bins and overgrown shrubbery. They wrote to the business owner of the bins and asked them to ensure the bins were pest proof. They also sent an email to an officer in another department and said the shrubbery needed to be cut down. The officer said they would follow this up with the relevant department.
19. The Council visited the site in June and witnessed rats under one of the bins. An officer spoke to the business owner who responsible for the bins and told them to put in place measures to dispose of the waste properly and install drainage plugs in the bins.
20. Mr X continued to send the Council emails about the issues and the increasing presence of rats. The Council failed to answer most of his emails. He asked the Council to escalate the matter as a formal complaint. An officer emailed Mr X and said it had visited the site a few times and spoken to businesses. It said some of the businesses were going to transfer their bin service to a sack collection. It also said its tree service would lift the tree canopy to create more space and light in the hedgerow.
21. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in August. It said it had taken some action to clear the rubbish. However, it was evident some businesses were placing some bins on the highway. It said it had asked its enforcement contractors to visit the area to see if there was adequate waste storage for each business to store their bins.
22. Mr X continued to report issues throughout September and October. An officer visited the site in October and noted the green area had not been cut. A senior officer sent an internal email and noted environmental health had worked with businesses to ensure they managed their bins. However, the green area was overgrown and there was littering in the shrubbery which was encouraging rats.

Back to top

Analysis

23. The Council is responsible for dealing with fly tipping on the land near to Mr X’s home as it is public land. It is also responsible for maintaining the green spaces. Despite this, the Council was initially reluctant to deal with the matter and it told Mr X the land was private land. This was the wrong information and is fault.
24. The Council did eventually pass the matter to its environmental health team. Officers visited the site a few times and spoke to business owners. However, I do not consider this has been sufficient to resolve the matter. The EHO stated in his email from March 2024 that a long-term way to resolve the matter would be to tidy up the green spaces and introduce a lockable bin storage area. Despite these suggestions, there is no evidence the Council implemented them. This is fault. In an officer’s visit to the site in October 2024 they noted the area was still overgrown and this was encouraging rats.
25. The Council was also at fault for its communication with Mr X. It failed to respond to many of his emails over several months and keep him properly updated on what it was doing to resolve the matter.
26. The Council’s faults have caused Mr X avoidable frustration and upset. He was put to the inconvenience of repeatedly raising the issues and he has had to deal with a rat infestation near to where he lives. This may have been avoided if the Council had taken robust measures sooner. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said it was reviewing and investigating other options for bin storage. I welcome this. The Council should complete a detailed review of this matter, apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him to reflect his injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. By 27 June 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Mr X £200 to reflect his avoidable frustration, upset and inconvenience.

28. By 25 July 2025 the Council has agreed to complete a detailed review of this matter (with particular attention to regularly maintaining the overgrown green spaces and investigating other options for bin storage). It should write to Mr X after the review and explain the steps it will take, and when, to resolve the issues.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman