Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council investigating a waste offence. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault it carried out an investigation. And while X said it delayed notifying them it was taking no further action about that matter, there is no significant injustice remaining to justify us investigating. Nor will we investigate a complaint about how the Council handled material, it recovered, as part of that investigation. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. X complained because the Council wrote to them as part of an investigation into a waste offence. X said they were unfairly accused of an offence. X also said there was a delay in them being told the Council was taking no further action in relation to that offence. Finally, X said the Council improperly disposed of material it recovered during the investigation.
2. X said the Council’s actions caused them distress.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In late March 2025, the Council wrote to X, asking for information about a waste offence. X was unhappy, because this letter said the Council may consider a fine or a prosecution. X said they felt unfairly accused.
6. We will not investigate this part of X’s complaint, because it is unlikely we would find fault. On the information the Council had, it was not unreasonable for it to have made enquiries with X, to investigate the matter further, before making a decision on what action it needed to take.
7. In early July 2025, the Council notified X it had decided to take no further action. The evidence shows it made this decision in May, and so there was a two-month delay in the Council notifying X of this outcome. The Council apologised for this delay. Noting the Council’s apology here, there is no significant injustice remaining to X, to justify an investigation into this aspect of his complaint.
8. Additionally, 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. Part of the material the Council recovered, which instigated the investigation, included X’s mail. X was unhappy the Council disposed of it. I will not investigate this part of X’s complaint either, because there is no evidence the Council’s actions here has caused X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and there is no significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman