Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not doing enough to prevent rubbish overflowing from some of her neighbours’ waste bins, and not dealing with the rubbish. There is not enough evidence of fault, and insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the matters complained of, to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives in a property that backs on to an alleyway where neighbours store bins. She complains the Council:
1. has not done enough to deal with some neighbours’ overflowing bins;
2. rubbish builds up in the alleyway which is not removed.
2. Ms X says the rubbish is attracting rodents and she has spent time and been caused trouble by having to report matters to the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Ms X, online maps and images and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
7. The Council had received earlier reports about rubbish in the alleyway and had written to residents to explain what they should do and encourage them to manage their waste responsibly. The Council responded to Ms X’s later reports about the rubbish by speaking to one resident whom Ms X considers responsible for leaving some of their rubbish in the alleyway and gathering relevant evidence. Officers found they could not determine which residents were responsible for the waste and so could not take further action such as enforcement. They sent a further letter to some residents reminding them of how to manage their rubbish.
8. The Council followed and applied its processes when dealing with Ms X’s and others’ reports about the alleyway rubbish. Officers considered the information they had about who was leaving the rubbish was insufficient for them to take more formal action, including enforcement. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with and responded to the matters raised to warrant us investigating. We recognise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. The Council says the alleyway is on a four-weekly cleaning schedule. If Ms X identifies waste there, she may also report this to the Council outside of that schedule. It would be for officers to determine what action to then take. It is not fault for a council to ask residents to report rubbish to its officers when it appears as their staff cannot identify all such issues in their area without residents’ help.
10. Even if there had been Council fault here, we would not investigate. The boundary of Ms X’s property is over 40 metres from the addresses where she says the rubbish has previously been left. She does not have to pass near that part of the alley to move her own bins to her collection point. We recognise the presence and sight of the rubbish would not be pleasant and this would cause Ms X some annoyance. But there is insufficient evidence of vermin or any other substantial impact on Ms X’s property when the waste is there. The sight of the rubbish and the annoyance caused would not amount to a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation. We realise Ms X has spent time and been caused some inconvenience when reporting the matter to the Council. But this, and the impacts of the rubbish, cause insufficient injustice to her to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman