Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on his requests for street cleaning in a timely manner. The Council was at fault. It responded to Mr X’s requests for street cleansing but it acknowledged there were delays in providing the service. This was fault and the Council apologised to Mr X for this delay. We found the apology suitable to remedy Mr X’s injustice. The Council agreed to also update its website to better manage expectations around how it responds to requests from residents for street cleansing.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to clean his street regularly and falsely claimed it had done so without providing evidence.
2. He said the poor street conditions cause him distress, stop his children from playing outside, and harm the wider community’s quality of life. He wants the Council to set up a regular cleaning schedule for his street and ensure prompt, effective responses to future complaints.

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 before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Street cleansing

7. Councils have legal duties to keep public roads clean and clear of litter and refuse “so far as is practicable”. The Government’s Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse provides practical guidance about carrying out the legal duties.
8. In practice, cleaning usually depends on the type of road (for example, rural, city centre, or residential) and how much the road is used. The Council’s website says it aims to sweep all roads on a daily, weekly, fortnightly or 4-weekly basis. Busy high streets are swept more regularly than quiet residential roads and very busy shopping areas, such as the city centre, are cleaned daily. However, during autumn, sweeping may be less regularly as leaf fall is removed from many locations throughout the city. It is possible for residents to request street cleansing via the Council’s website. There is no statutory timeframe for when requests need to be completed by.

Complaint handling

9. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one, it acknowledges complaints within two working days and provides a response within 15 working days. If dissatisfied with the response, people may ask for a review of the complaint. The stage two review response should be sent within 20 working days.

What happened

10. Mr X, who lives on a residential street, reported litter on his street to the Council in November. When he received no response, he submitted a formal complaint later that month.
11. In December, the Council replied, apologising for the delay in responding to his street cleansing request. It explained that the service manager had confirmed the street would be inspected and any necessary work carried out as soon as resources allowed.
12. By late January, with the street still uncleansed, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two. He asked the Council for a detailed response and requested a clear schedule outlining how and when it would maintain an acceptable standard of cleanliness.
13. Around two weeks later, in early February, the Council responded. It upheld his complaint, confirmed the street had now been cleaned, and apologised for the further delay.
14. In March, Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and the service provided. He explained that, despite the Council’s use of a mechanical sweeper, litter was still left on the pavement in areas the sweeper could not reach. He complained to us.
15. In late March Mr X made another service request reporting the remaining litter on the pavement. The Council recorded on its own system it was due to complete this service request within five working days, by early April. The Council actioned Mr X request in early May 2025 and sent two officers to pick litter from the pavement.
16. In an email to Mr X, the Council again apologised for the delays he had experienced following his service requests. It explained that leaf clearance duties had caused delays in the autumn, while in the spring delays were due to fly-tipping and the additional workload of removing extra bags during ongoing industrial action that began in March 2025.
17. The Council’s website states that it aims to sweep all roads on a daily, weekly, fortnightly, or four-weekly basis. Following our enquiries about which schedule applied to Mr X’s road, the Council confirmed that his street is scheduled to be cleaned by a large mechanical sweeper every two weeks, subject to vehicle and driver availability.
18. The Council further said street cleaning is not a statutory service and hence regular street cleansing of residential roads including on set days and times is not required. Instead, the Council said residents can request street cleansing services and these requests would be carried out by its depot as and when vehicles and drivers are available.
19. The Council stated it can no longer provide data on completed street cleansing jobs, as it now operates with hired vehicles. However, it confirmed that Mr X’s street had been cleaned at least twice in the past six months.

My findings

Street cleansing

20. The Council is not required to provide a regular cleaning schedule, as its duty is to act “as far as practicable” under the Government’s Code of Practice on litter and refuse. The Council’s website gives an expectation that it aims to cleanse streets around every four weeks. The Council has explained that due to other priorities, including ongoing industrial action that this has not been possible. It also says residents can request litter picking where necessary, although it gives no timeframes which in this case left Mr X with uncertainty about his request. The Council has accepted fault in that it delayed both responding to and carrying out Mr X’s request for street cleaning. It has apologised for this which is suitable to remedy any injustice the delay caused to Mr X. I have made a recommendation below for the Council to better manage customer’s expectations around timeframes for street cleaning requests.

Complaint handling

21. The Council operates a two-stage formal complaints process. In this case, it adhered to the timeframes set out in its corporate complaints policy. I therefore find no fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Actions

22. Within two months of the final decision the Council agreed to consider amending its website to manage resident’s expectations around timescales for responding to and carrying out street cleaning requests. The Council agreed to consider whether it is appropriate to amend the timescales throughout the year where other priorities may impact on the timeliness of responding to cleaning requests.
23. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

24. I completed the investigation finding fault causing injustice which the Council remedied. I made recommendations for the Council as service improvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman