Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s mishandling of matters relating to bulky waste material he wanted to dispose of. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because other bodies are better placed to consider the matters raised by Mr X and an investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to the outcomes he seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has mishandled matters relating to bulky waste material he wanted to dispose of. He says errors by the Council have resulted in enforcement action being taken against him and to him losing his job. He says he wants his case to be referred to the police for a criminal investigation, the dismissal of the officer involved in his case and financial compensation.

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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants or there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Having installed a new kitchen, Mr X wanted to dispose of the old one. He applied to the Council for a permit for his work van to dispose of the waste at the Council’s tip. The Council asked for documentation for the van which Mr X could not provide and so Mr X withdrew his application and emailed a local councillor, copying in the recycling department, asking for the councillor to arrange for the Council to collect the waste. A few days later the Council told Mr X his request for a permit had been reviewed and granted.
5. Mr X took the waste out of the van and placed it in a public area by his home. As the waste remained there a Council officer advised him the waste should be removed and that he could take it to the tip as the permit had been granted. However, Mr X declined to do so.
6. In the meantime, the Council’s Greenspace team received complaints about the waste and, without initially knowing about the involvement of the recycling team, it began an investigation which involved contacting Mr X’s employer, traced via the work van.
7. Mr X says this Council contact with his employer, which included a Council officer giving false information about him, was used by his employer as an excuse to dismiss him. Mr X says it had been looking for an excuse due to other unrelated issues. Mr X says the officer deliberately gave false information to strengthen the Council’s case against him.
8. As part of its investigation, the Council invited Mr X in for an interview under caution. It told him it would stop its formal action if he accepted a caution. Mr X told the Council he would not accept one and so the Council is now taking Mr X to court over the offence.
9. In relation to his employment dismissal, Mr X is taking his employer to the Employment Tribunal.

Assessment

10. I understand Mr X believes no action should have been taken against him by the Council because he had been in contact with a councillor and the recycling team about the waste and its disposal. The Council has acknowledged that the councillor did not get back to him and that initially the Greenspace team was not aware of Mr X’s communication about the waste. However, as Mr X did not accept the caution, it has decided there are sufficient grounds to warrant legal action through the courts. These matters, and what action Mr X might reasonably have taken to dispose of the waste, will be considered by the court.
11. Mr X seeks a police investigation and the dismissal of the officer involved in his case but these are not outcomes we can achieve for Mr X. Mr X also seeks compensation for losing his job but the Employment Tribunal is the body which will determine whether Mr X was unfairly dismissed and whether compensation is payable.
12. In response to my draft decision Mr X says the officer who spoke to his employer gave false information which was pivotal and contributed to his dismissal. However, not only was the issue of fly-tipping a separate matter to the erroneous statement that he had used his work van to go to the tip, but it was also one of three misconduct issues considered by Mr X’s employer. Moreover, Mr X has said that during the interview under caution an apology was given by the officers present for the incorrect information initially given to his employer about Mr X visiting the tip. Mr X chose to present certain extracts from this recorded interview to his employer during his appeal against dismissal and presumably he could have included the Council’s acknowledgement of the error and its apology for it too had he wanted.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because other bodies are better placed to consider the matters raised by Mr X and an investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to the outcomes Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman