London Borough of Croydon (20 009 070)

Category : Environment and regulation > Refuse and recycling

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 11 May 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of reports he made of flytipping on the street where he lives. The complaint was closed because Mr X has not suffered a degree of injustice that warrants further pursuit of the complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of reports he made of flytipping on the street where he lives. Mr X says:
    • He reported a case of flytipping in September 2020 but it was not cleared for ten days despite the Council’s published commitment to clear incidents of flytipping within 24 hours.
    • He contacted the Council’s chief Executive when the litter was not cleared within 24 hours and was informed a complaint had been logged and would be responded to within 20 days. However he never received a response.
    • He made a complaint about an officer within the Council’s complaints team who constantly makes excuses.
  2. Mr X says he was put to a lot of inconvenience and stress by having to constantly contact the Council to clear the litter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
  • there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
  • it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

  1. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent my initial thoughts on the complaint to Mr X and the Council and invited their comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The Ombudsman has broad discretion about the complaints he will investigate. In all cases, we need to see if the injustice complained about is significant, and if we can provide a suitable remedy.
  2. In this case, it is clear the Council acted on Mr X’s reports of fly tips although it may not have acted within 24 hours in all cases. I do not find Mr X suffered a significant injustice because the Council did not meet its 24 hour target. I note Mr X’s reference to suffering inconvenience and stress when chasing the Council. However, it was for Mr X to decide on the amount of contact he would have with the Council following his initial reports of fly tips. I do not find that he suffered an injustice that now warrants a remedy simply because he had to chase matters with the Council.
  3. As to the alleged lack of response by the Council to Mr X’s complaint and his further complaint about a complaints officer, the evidence I have seen shows the Council decided to deal with Mr X’s reports as service requests rather than complaints to be put through its complaints procedure. One complaints officer told him that the Council would not deal with the matter as a complaint which prompted Mr X to write to the Chief Executive to complain about the officer.
  4. The Ombudsman expects councils to respond to queries from public and address complaints they receive. So I would not condone a lack of response from the Council.
  5. But I do not find Mr X suffered an injustice because of the lack of a response that now warrants a remedy from the Ombudsman. The Council did clear the fly tips. While I recognise Mr X retains a strong sense of grievance here, I do not find Mr X’s feelings now warrant further pursuit of this matter by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.
  6. I have considered whether an investigation by the Ombudsman is warranted in the public interest. Given the Council cleared the litter, the residual matters are Mr X’s unhappiness with the time taken by the Council and the handling of his complaints. These matters involve personal injustice rather than a public one.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I closed this complaint because Mr X did not suffer an injustice that warrants further pursuit of the matter by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings