Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 020 956)
Category : Environment and regulation > Pollution
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 16 Mar 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council fining him for spitting in public. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
- Mr X complained the Council unfairly issued him a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for spitting in public. He said the matter caused him anxiety and distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X said the Council issued him a fine for spitting in public. He said the Council’s decision was incorrect and unfair. He said he had a medical condition which had led him to spit and he had done so privately with no witnesses around and so he did not cause any harm to the public. Mr X later paid the fine.
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it is a criminal offense for someone to litter in public places. Spitting is considered as a littering offense. The Act also gives powers to councils to issue FPNs should they believe someone has committed the offense. Mr X did not deny he spat in public. The Council was reasonable to fine him for doing so.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman