Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with cleanliness issues in an area near her property, and how it dealt with her complaint. An investigation would not add to the Council’s investigation nor result in a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Miss X by the matters complained of to justify us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives next to an area of land which is partially under a railway bridge. A footpath runs from her road, accessed across the land, and runs under the bridge to the other side of the railway. Miss X complains the Council:
1. delayed in cleaning the area of dead pigeons and pigeon excrement, which took almost a year, then cleaned the wrong area;
2. refused to deal with the problems as an environmental health issue;
3. delayed in dealing with her complaint.
2. Miss X says the matter has caused her ongoing distress and she has spent time and been caused trouble by pursuing the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Miss X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X has made reports to the Council about the area for many months. Since 2024, officers have recognised the area as one requiring more attention. In addition to its general street-cleaning schedule, the Council did a deep clean last autumn, then a pre‑summer clean. The report of the Council’s autumn works, including images after the work, indicate officers cleaned the whole area, not just a specific part. Officers had scheduled a further autumn clean for this year. They have advised Miss X on how to report to them if she considers standards slip.
6. The Council’s actions demonstrate officers have responded to and acted on Miss X’s reports and concerns and improved the area. We recognise there may have been initial delays in the Council’s response. But the matter has moved on as the Council has done several cleans. This is the kind of practical outcome an investigation by us may have sought. An investigation by us would not now add to the Council’s investigation and responses, nor achieve a different outcome here.
7. The Council denies responsibility for the main mess caused in the area. It says Transport for London (TfL) owns the bridge which passes over part of the area and pigeons nesting under the bridge is the source of most of the mess. The Council continues to correspond with TfL to try to get works done to the bridge to reduce the impact of the pigeons. It is for officers to determine how they continue to liaise with TfL about its responsibility for the area. We could not intervene in this correspondence to achieve a different outcome.
8. Miss X also says the Council has not referred the matter to its Environmental Health officers. The officers who dealt with Miss X’s reports and complaints did not do this. It is for officers to decide whether a report to the Council about the condition of an area requires the involvement of Environmental Health, using their professional judgement. There is not enough evidence of fault in that approach by officers to warrant us investigating.
9. Even if there has been Council fault, we will not investigate. We recognise Miss X has been upset about the condition of the land when she has passed through it and believes it to be a health hazard. But it was open to Miss X to take a different route from her property to avoid the area and any hazard she considered it posed. It was Miss X’s decision to spend time and effort reporting and pursuing the matter with the Council. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to her stemming from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.
10. Miss X says the Council delayed in dealing with her complaint. We do not investigate councils’ internal complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• an investigation would not add to the Council’s investigation and actions nor result in a different outcome; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the officers’ approach to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman