Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide a safe and effective solution to a longstanding big storage problem. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it properly responded to Mr X’s reports and concerns and is taking action to secure a long term solution to the problem.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to provide a safe and effective solution to a longstanding bin storage problem following redevelopment at an adjacent site. He is concerned the Council’s proposal to use highways land creates a significant road safety risk that has not been properly considered.
2. He says the Council has taken too long to deal with the problem that caused fly tipping and attracted vermin. This affected his ability to rent his neighbouring properties, causing financial loss.

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 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated the decision about relocation of the bin storage from its original site. This is because it happened too long ago. My investigation has focused on the Council’s actions since Mr X brought his concerns to the Council in 2024. I have referred to earlier events for contextual reasons only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

The Environmental Protection Act 1990

9. Under section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990, councils have a duty to collect household waste. 

What happened

10. Mr X owns rental properties in a block of flats adjacent to a shopping centre and car park. Originally, purpose built communal refuse facilities were located in the car park. Several years ago, the car park was redeveloped to accommodate more cars. This did not provide room for the existing refuse facilities.
11. Instead, the commercial bins were situated on a piece of council-owned land near to the flats.
12. Mr X says this was unsuitable from the outset and attracted vermin and fly tipping. He says this raised public health concerns as well as being an eyesore, affecting the amenity of the residents, including his tenants.
13. Mr X first reported his concerns, specifically about fly tipping in October 2024. The offending waste was removed. He says he made several other reports of a similar nature. Whilst grateful that the Council followed up on such incidents, Mr X felt this was not addressing the underlying issue and the problems would continue.
14. This led to Mr X making a formal complaint to the Council in January 2025. He suggested a suitable location. In response, the Council:

• explained why his proposal was not suitable;
• confirmed an alternative location had been identified;
• confirmed that screening and landscaping would be included in the bin design; and
• explained a planning application was necessary to develop the proposed site and this would take some time to process.

15. Dissatisfied this the outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. In response to our enquires, the Council explained:

• unsightly caging around the bins was necessary as a temporary measure due to wind issues;
• various locations were considered when the big storage was no longer available in the car park, but were considered unsuitable;
• it had monitored the site and increased collections from fortnightly, to twice weekly;
• a cleansing team visits the site every morning to remove any larger items that had been fly tipped; and
• it proposied to relate bin storage to a piece of highways land at the end of an adjacent cul-de-sac. This will involve a “stopping up” order being obtained to change to use of the highway, that would be subject to public consultation.

16. Mr X says this proposal is unsuitable because bin wagons having to us the cul-de-sac will cause a serious risk to motorists and pedestrians. Mr X has submitted his concerns to the Council as part of the “stopping up” order.

Analysis

17. It is not my role to decide the most appropriate site for the bin storage. I can only determine whether the Council’s decision-making has adhered to a clear process and without fault. This means the Council considering and using the powers it has to seek a resolution of the current problem. I am satisfied it did so in this case.
18. Mr X has provided the Ombudsman with several photographs of the existing bin storage facilities. They show numerous industrial waste bins, many of which are overflowing, housed by metal, mesh panels. I agree with Mr X this is unsightly and is a justifiable source of dissatisfaction. The Council also agrees it is unacceptable and it is my assessment that it has taken appropriate action to achieve a workable solution.
19. It is clearly unfortunate that waste disposal was not considered when the car park was developed. However, how this came about is not a matter I am able to investigate. I am only able to consider what the Council did once Mr X raised his concerns, from late 2024.
20. The case records I have seen, provide evidence the Council has taken appropriate action to address the problem.
21. Initially, it responded to specific reports about fly tipping. However, when Mr X made it clear this was not a long term solution and the problems kept recurring, I the Council started exploring other options. This was the correct approach.
22. It also took action to alleviate the day-to-day issues by increasing collections and regularly removing larger items.
23. The Council has explained to Mr X why finding a suitable site was not straightforward and because many issues had to be considered, including ownership and status of possible sites. Since Mr X made his complaint, I am satisfied the Council has been actively progressing the matter, taking into account the various complexities that have inevitably taken longer that Mr X would prefer. However, I found no evidence of excessive, avoidable delay.
24. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s relocation proposal. However, this matter is ongoing, and Mr X has submitted an objection to the Council’s application to stop up the highway. This legal process is not a matter the Ombudsman to comment upon and falls outside of this investigation. The Council is allowed to make its own assessment about the most suitable relocation and the decision maker about this, not Mr X, nor the Ombudsman.
25. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of decisions taken by the Council where it has acted in line with procedures and properly responded to Mr X’s complaint. I am satisfied that this applies to this case.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I find no fault. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman