Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not requiring a nearby business to move its commercial waste bin and not dealing with anti-social behaviour (ASB) related to the bin. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding the bin to warrant investigation. The ASB matters do not cause such significant injustice to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the complaint outcome she seeks.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives in a road where a business keeps its bin. She complains the Council has:
1. failed to require the business owner to store the bin elsewhere;
2. failed to deal with anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the area around the bin.
2. Ms X says the ASB includes people urinating behind the bin and using it to climb on a nearby roof. She says the ASB makes her nervous and feels she wants to move away. Ms X says litter around the bin is attracting vermin. She says the matter is affecting her mental health, and her dog has been ill from eating food waste left at the bin. Ms X wants the Council to require the bin to be moved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X, relevant online maps and images of the location, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council decision if there is fault in the decision-making process officers have followed and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace a council’s view with our or someone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.
6. Councils must investigate reports of environmental nuisance. They also have powers to take various actions against someone causing such nuisances, from no action, through advice, to formal legal action. But there is no duty on councils to use any or all of their powers in all cases. Officers have discretion to decide how they should deal with each report they receive.
7. In response to Ms X’s concerns, officers considered the information provided about the bin, its location and their environmental powers. Officers noted they had responded to earlier evidence of rubbish left around the bin. They were satisfied the waste was due for collection so did not find grounds to take enforcement action. Officers did not find a statutory nuisance caused by the bin or its use which would warrant them taking further action. They determined the Council does not have powers to order the bin to be stored elsewhere and that its location does not break the law or breach environmental controls. We recognise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s position. But officers have followed the appropriate decision-making process. They have gathered and considered the relevant information and the Council’s powers when making their decisions. It is not fault for a council to properly reach a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. The Council responded to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) around the bin earlier in 2024. The bin’s owner agreed to move it but then moved it back over concerns it was being tampered with in the other location. We note Ms X says she has witnessed people urinating against the bin. Public urination would be an offence, so would be a matter for the police to investigate should Ms X wish to report it. In respect of other ASB Ms X mentions, we recognise such incidents are of concern to her and cause upset. But the location of the bin and its distance from Ms X’s property means the incidents reported are not of sufficient impact to cause a significant personal injustice to Ms X warranting an investigation. She may report future incidents to the Council, particularly if she considers they increase. It would be for officers to determine what action, if any, they should take in response.
9. The outcome Ms X wants is for the Council to order the owner to move the bin. We cannot order a council to do this, overturning officers’ considered position. That we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding the bin to warrant investigation; and
• the ASB matters which fall within the Council’s remit do not cause her such significant injustice to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman