Summary: We will not investigate part of Mr X’s complaint about green waste fly tipping because the claimed injustice is not significant enough. We will not investigate another part because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaint. We will not investigate the remainder because the tests in our assessment code are not met.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to:
1. address green waste fly tipping which occurred in its area in September 2024;
2. respond to his Freedom of Information (FOI) request accurately; and
3. respond to his complaint in line with its stated timescales.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration and time and trouble to resolve.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

7. Mr X complained green waste had been “fly tipped” in the Council’s area in September 2024. He complained to the Council. He later submitted a Freedom of Information request.
8. In June 2025, further green waste was “fly tipped” in the same location. The Council soon thereafter attended the site and cleared both the original and the subsequent debris.

Failure to clear green waste fly tipped in September 2024

9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
10. Although Mr X explained the matter caused him frustration, the injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. The green waste has now been removed and the Council apologised to Mr X during its complaints handling. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Freedom of Information handling

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his Freedom of Information request. If Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council's response, it is open to him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I have seen no good reasons the Ombudsman should consider the matter in lieu of the ICO, and so we will not investigate this matter.

Complaints handling

12. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Consequently, we will not investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate part of Mr X’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough. We will not investigate another part because another organisation is better placed to consider the complaint. We will not investigate the remainder because the tests in our assessment code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman