Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her complaint about an accumulation of refuse at a neighbouring property as I do not consider Ms X is caused a significant level of injustice to justify our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained to the Council in February 2024 about an accumulation of refuse at a neighbouring property that got worse over a period of around ten days. Ms X wanted the area to be cleaned urgently as she believed rats were being attracted by the refuse. Ms X also complains about the Council’s response to her information requests and about comments in case notes about her complaints that she has had sight of following her information requests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X lives next door to a block of flats. The communal bins for the flats are stored on land adjacent to Ms X’s garden. Ms X says she has been complaining since 2017 about waste management issues at the flats and associated problems with vermin.
9. The Council indicates it last dealt with a complaint about this matter in February 2024. Ms X complained to us in January 2025. The law says we should generally only investigate matters referred to us within a year of the person knowing about the problem. Ms X’s issue from February 2024 falls within the year prior to her complaining to us, so my decision is based on this matter. I do not consider there are good reasons to investigate complaints prior to this time as it is reasonable to expect Ms X to have complained to us sooner about other problems she has encountered. We have previously made Ms X aware of the time barrier in complaining to us when we dealt with another complaint from her several years ago.
10. In February 2024, Ms X complained to the Council about an accumulation of waste that got worse over a period of around ten days. While I recognise Ms X’s concerns, I do not consider that she was caused a level of injustice from this incident, in isolation, to justify our further involvement. I understand Ms X refers to ongoing/waste vermin problems, and that her concerns were no doubt fuelled by this, but as explained, my decision is based solely on the complaint from February 2024. Matters prior to this are not within our remit as not brought to us within a year of Ms X knowing about them.
11. In its complaint response to Ms X, the Council advised that responsibility for waste/pest control at the flats lay with the managing agents for the property and that Ms X’s complaints were best addressed to them. In respect of the waste accumulation, the Council’s complaint response indicated it was cleared away after a period of two weeks. It also confirmed that a pest control policy was in place at the property.
12. While I recognise Ms X wanted the Council to take specific action in respect of pest control, that it may not have done does not automatically equate to it being at fault. Local authorities do have duties under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 to ensure that their areas are kept, so far as practicable, free from rats and can take enforcement action against private landowners. It is for the Council though to determine what action to take and in this case, the Council has decided the responsibility lies with the managing agents of the property. There is insufficient indication of fault by the Council, evidenced by Ms X’s complaint, to justify us looking into this further.
13. Ms X also complains that the Council has not properly dealt with information requests she has made to it regarding these issues, including delayed and incomplete responses. We will not investigate this complaint as such matters are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as it is the UK’s independent regulator in respect of access to information rights.
14. Ms X complains about comments she has discovered in case notes relating to the complaints she has made. Ms X would need to complain to the Council in the first instance about these, before we would carry out an assessment of these matters.
15. For these reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice to Ms X or significant fault by the Council, and other aspects of the complaint are best dealt with by the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman