Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s responses to fly-tipping in his area. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the complaint outcome Mr X seeks. Other issues are premature for us to investigate and it would be reasonable for him to pursue them with the Council first.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has:
1. failed to acknowledge streets near his property have a serious fly-tipping problem;
2. not taken steps to stop fly-tipping;
3. not cleaned up dumped waste.
2. Mr X says he can see fly-tipped waste from the front and rear of his property. He says a van has been dumped in his parking space, and people have worked on vehicles in the area which he considers is illegal. Mr X wants the Council to put in security measures to prevent fly-tipping such as CCTV cameras and gates.

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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are 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 has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
8. In response to Mr X’s reports, the Council inspected the highways land in his area, which included the roadways and footways. Officers found no fly-tipping or litter issues on Council-owned land but there were some leaves which their contractor later cleared. During their visit, officers found there was dumped waste on private property, in car parks and other areas which are the responsibility of private property owners. Officers served enforcement notices on the owners, requiring them to clear the waste. Officers also checked their fly‑tipping records for the area and did not find evidence of exceptionally high amounts reported on their land. They noted most fly-tipping there had been on private property. Officers found waste reported on their land was removed within their five-day deadlines. Mr X says some dumped waste he reported in December 2024 was still there several weeks later, but this was on private land, not Council land.
9. Officers acknowledged Mr X’s concerns but explained they do not use CCTV unless an area is prone to commercial scale fly-tipping on their land. Using the evidence officers had gathered, they decided the number and seriousness of fly‑tipping incidents in Mr X’s area did not warrant them taking preventative actions. They also explained that they are not able to install CCTV to record private property and any preventative measures would be the responsibility of the owners of that private land. Officers also wrote to residents to seek to deter them from dumping waste in the area.
10. Officers gathered relevant evidence about the area, the land ownership issues, and the fly-tipping found to inform their decisions and actions. They found no dumped waste on their land. Where they found such waste on private land, they took enforcement action to seek its removal, which is the discretionary power they have where waste is not on their land. Officers determined the condition of their land did not give them grounds to use measures such as CCTV to deter fly‑tipping. It is for officers to determine, using their professional judgement, where the Council should most effectively use its resources. There is not enough of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes and actions here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to do works to try to prevent further fly-tipping. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. We realise the outcome Mr X wants is for the Council to put in security measures to prevent fly‑tipping. But we cannot order councils to use their funds in a particular area. It remains their officers’ decision on where resources should be used, based on the information they hold for their entire borough. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.
12. Mr X’s complaint to us refers to a van abandoned in his parking space and people fixing vehicles in the area. In his complaint to the Council he asked officers to clarify ownership of the parking land, but he has not complained to the Council about its response regarding the van. Mr X’s Council complaint also refers to ‘illegal fixing of vehicles’ as a reason why he has installed his own security camera, but he has not made a complaint to the Council about it. We should not investigate matters which have not been raised as complaints with a council. Such issues are premature for us to consider. If Mr X wishes to pursue these issues, he would need to do so with the Council first. If he is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Council’s complaint process, he may wish to bring these issues back to us and we would then consider whether to investigate. It would be reasonable for Mr X to take this route as the Council may provide a satisfactory response. Alternatively, if he considers any activities he witnesses are illegal, Mr X may consider reporting them to the police for their consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks; and
• the abandoned van and vehicle repairs issues are premature and it would be reasonable for him to pursue them with the Council first.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman