Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to prevent fly-tipping in his area in recent years. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the failure of the Council to deal with fly-tipping in his area. He says he has suffered from trade waste and rubbish on the pavements in his area for two years and wants the Council to refund part of his council tax.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X lives in an area where fly-tipping and trade waste from shops has been a problem for some years. He complained to the Council and it inspected the site. It told him that the trade waste problem was caused by previous shop owners placing waste bags on the highway on the wrong day. It says this has been rectified and new owners are storing their waste correctly.
5. Fly-tipping is a criminal offence and the Council says it has fined persons in the past when it has been able to obtain sufficient evidence. It monitors the site with CCTV, but this does not always identify the fly-tippers. The Council can only react to reports of tipped waste. Mr X says the waste was left on the streets for weeks in the past, but the Council says its contractor usually removes fly-tipping within 48 hours of being reported. Mr X says he has seen examples when the contractor has labelled waste but has not been collected for some time.
6. Councils are the prosecuting authorities for fly-tipping crime but they cannot realistically prevent it taking place. The Council has taken what action it can to prevent trade waste accumulations, but it could not stop members of the public from tipping waste if they choose to break the law. The Council cannot spend a disproportionate amount of its resources on a small part of its overall area of public spaces.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman