Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s contractor workers allegedly urinating near the complainant’s property. This is because the Ombudsman is unlikely to be able to make any determination of fault by the Council or add to the investigation it has already conducted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr V, is making a complaint about the Council’s contractor workers allegedly urinating close to his property on a number of occasions. Mr V has requested a refund of his service charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have reviewed Mr V’s complaint to the Council and Ombudsman. I have also had regard to the responses of the Council, including supporting documents. Further, Mr V commented on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. In April 2019, Mr V wrote to the Council to complain that one of its contractor cleaning operatives was urinating close to his property. He also said that other people living on the same estate as his had witnessed cleaning operatives urinating in the area. The Council undertook to investigate, noting that there had been a similar reporting from the area in 2016.
5. The Council subsequently reported the matter to the contractor contract manager which led to the cleaning operative in question being interviewed. The allegations were denied and due to a lack of evidence or corroborating witnesses, the matter could not be pursued any further. However, the contract manager did issue a memo to all cleaning operatives clearly setting out the incident and reminding them of their responsibilities when working in the area.
6. In November 2019, Mr V wrote to the Council to allege that a further incident of public urination had occurred by a cleaning operative. Mr V also requested a refund on his service charge on account of the incident. The Council took a description of the person urinating and this led to the cleaning operative being identified and interview. However, as with the other incident, the individual in question denied the allegations and a lack of evidence meant the matter was not pursued. The contract manager for the cleaning operatives did make clear however that further allegations would result in staff being moved.
7. In December 2019, the Council set out to Mr V it was in no way refuting his allegations, but a lack of evidence meant the matter could not be pursued any further against the cleaning operatives in question. It did undertake to monitor the situation in the area. Further, on the question of a reimbursement of the service charge, the Council declined this request on the basis that Mr V’s building and surrounding buildings had rarely been subject to complaint and it maintained that cleaning performance was generally good.

Assessment

8. In my view, the Council have acted on the allegations by relaying Mr V’s complaints to the contract manager for the cleaning operatives. On each occasion, the individual in question has been identified and interviewed. Further, all staff have been issued with written instructions as regards to their responsibilities and the contract manager has advised staff will be moved in the event of further allegations. For these reasons, I believe the Council have taken appropriate action to prevent incidents such as these from happening and has undertaken to keep the matter under review. I cannot therefore make any determination of fault as regards to the actions taken by the Council. Additionally, it is unlikely I could add to the investigation conducted by the Council.
9. Because I have not made any determination of fault, I cannot give effect to Mr V’s sought after remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I cannot make any determination of fault by the Council and I am unlikely to be able to add to the investigation already conducted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman