Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions and responses to her reports of litter and debris dumped on roadsides in the area. We could not add to the Council’s own investigation and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Even if there has been fault in some of the Council’s actions, the matters complained of do not cause Mrs X such sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in the Council’s area. She complains the Council:
1. initially denied responsibility for removing rubbish and debris from the side of some of the roads in the area;
2. has failed or delayed in removing rubbish and debris from the roadsides.
2. Mrs X considers the state of the road verges to be disgraceful and says there are rats in the brook next to one road, which is a health hazard. She is concerned a motorist will be injured removing some of the debris, when it is blown on to the road. Mrs X says the verges are so full of abandoned items that they cannot be used as intended.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; 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 by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X has made various reports over several months about litter and larger items left on the roadsides in her area. The Council accepted cleaning of the locations reported was its responsibility. It upheld Mrs X’s complaint but says that in response to it, its officers have cleared the reported waste from each of the areas earlier in 2025. Where the complaint was about fly-tipping, the Council advised Mrs X the areas mentioned would be cleared where necessary. Where Mrs X was concerned about general litter in an area, the Council stated it would remain on their six-weekly cleansing rota.
6. We recognise the Council did not act on some or all the reports of litter and other tipped debris Mrs X made as quickly as she would have wanted. It is likely there were delays in the Council accepting responsibility, then responding to and completing the work. But the clearance actions the Council has already taken, and its ongoing service in place to respond to further fly-tipping reports or litter, mean we could not now add to the Council’s own investigation and actions. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome for Mrs X. For these reasons, we will not investigate.
7. We do not investigate solely on the basis that we have found or may find council fault. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the complainant. Even if there has been Council fault in how it dealt with Mrs X’s reports and complaints, we will not investigate. We recognise Mrs X considers the roadsides to be unsightly, dangerous and a possible health hazard and has raised the matters as a concerned local resident. It was Mrs X’s choice to visit the sites and pursue the reports she made with the Council. The time and inconvenience used to do so was not within the Council’s control. The reports of tipped items or litter are not in areas so near Mrs X’s property to have any impact on her home. None of the visual, safety risk or health issues she mentions relating to the sites have impacts on her or her property which amount to a significant personal injustice to her. Any impacts they have had on other residents or road users would not be Mrs X’s own personal injustice. We understand she may consider she is not getting sufficient roadside cleaning for the cost of her council tax. But council tax is a system based on property values; it is not a payment made for any specific service. If the Council has provided a lower level of service than it should here, the fraction of council tax Mrs X pays towards the area’s cleaning services would not be such a financial injustice to her to justify an investigation. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mrs X caused by the matters complained of here to warrant us investigating.
8. Mrs X has reported to us that there has been further fly-tipping in one of the locations after the Council’s complaint process had ended. This is a new matter which she may wish to report to the Council, if she has not already done so. If Mrs X identifies further dumped rubbish, she should report this to the Council as a request for a service in the first instance. Any consideration by us of any further complaint from Mrs X about the Council’s response to future reports would, as always, include an assessment of the personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• we could not add to the Council’s own investigation; and
• an investigation would not lead to a different outcome; and
• the matters complained of do not cause her sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman