Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s management of keeping a public area clean and how it dealt with his complaint. This is because Mr X has not been caused a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council manages the cleaning of a public area. He also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint and believed it failed to investigate it. Mr X would like the Council’s contracted waste management company to keep the public area clean and he would like the Council to check that it has been cleaned. He would also like the Council to investigate complaints it receives from the public.

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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint which included the Council’s response to his complaint. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X said he had concerns about rubbish in a subway he uses daily and that he reported his concerns to the Council several times between June and December 2020. He believed the subway was not regularly cleaned by the Council’s contracted waste management company. Mr X added that when he reported his concerns to the Council, the Council responded to him indicating the job had been completed but Mr X said it had not been completed.
5. Mr X made his first complaint to the Council in November 2020. He said he had made several reports about the subway needing a clean and the Council failed to complete the jobs and there was no evidence the subway was cleaned regularly. He asked the Council if it had a programme for cleaning the subway. The Council responded to Mr X later that month and said its supervisor investigated Mr X’s complaint and visited the subway. It said it could not find fault in the actions of the service as all jobs had been completed on time and it had pictures as evidence that indicated the jobs had been completed. The Council continued that the subway gets cleaned regularly every three weeks and upon request, as it gets dirty often due to frequent use.
6. Mr X complained again to the Council in December 2020 as he was not satisfied with its response. He asked the Council to provide him with the pictures that showed the rubbish had been cleaned and evidence that the supervisor had visited. He also asked for the Council to provide him with the cleaning schedule backdated to June 2020 and going forward. He said this would save him the trouble of reporting to the Council that the subway needs cleaning if he knows there is a scheduled clean due soon.
7. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint and said it would respond to him by 13 January 2021. Mr X said he e-mailed the Council twice to chase up its response and it did not respond to him until 23 February 2021. The Council apologised for the delay with its response.
8. The Council provided Mr X with one picture which suggested the area had been cleaned after he reported it on that occasion. It added that its contracted waste management company does not routinely obtain and keep evidence of visits made. It gave Mr X a list of previous and future scheduled cleaning dates and said the future dates are subject to any unforeseen operational issues. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It said the reports it received by Mr X were completed on time and provided a detailed account to Mr X on how it responded to his concerns.
9. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s final response to his complaint. He said he took pictures of the site before and after he reported concerns which indicated that the Council’s contracted waste management company did not complete the jobs as it said and did not carry out routine cleaning of the area.

Back to top

Analysis

10. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is a good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. In this case, Mr X has not been caused a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.
11. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Consequently, we will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about how the Council dealt with his complaint as a standalone issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has not been caused a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman