Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice for fly-tipping. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have raised a defence in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council issued him with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN). He says he was wrongly accused of fly-tipping. Mr X wants a refund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint replies and email exchanges. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. A council can serve a FPN if someone commits a waste offence. If the person pays the fine the case is closed. If they do not pay councils can prosecute. The person can raise a defence in court if they do not think they committed an offence. The magistrates then decide if the person committed an offence.
5. Mr X left a cardboard box inside a larger box next to some recycling containers. There was a sign in the area which said, “if the bins are full, you cannot place your rubbish or waste outside, or in the area of the bins, they have to go inside the bins. If the bins are full you have to take it to another facility or take it home.”
6. The Council issued a FPN because Mr X left the box outside the bins.
7. Mr X admitted the offence, under caution, and paid £200 for the fine. However, he continued to contest the fine and wants a refund.
8. In response to his complaint the Council explained it had correctly issued the FPN because people are only permitted to leave waste inside the bins. It said it has to pay extra to have waste removed from anywhere other than inside the bins. It explained there are signs advising people not to leave waste outside the bins. The Council said the officer who issued the fine acted appropriately and had to issue a caution because FPNs are part of a legal process.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could have raised a defence in court. Mr X agrees he left the box outside the bins and the Council has explained this is not permitted, as stated on the signs. If, however, Mr X disagreed he had committed an offence then, rather than paying the fine, he could have waited for the Council to prosecute and then raised a defence in court. The Council acted appropriately by explaining why it had rejected his challenge and by explaining the process. There is no reason to start an investigation and no grounds to ask for a refund.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could have raised a defence in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman