The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in response to her reports of rubbish and fly-tipping, its decision on how it collects waste from some nearby properties, and its response to her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant an investigation. We cannot achieve the outcomes Miss X seeks. We do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.
The complaint
Miss X lives in a road where some nearby properties do not have allocated bins. Residents of those properties bag their rubbish and the Council asks them to leave it at a pavement collection point on specific days and times. Miss X complains the Council: has failed to take appropriate action and find solutions to prevent rubbish and fly-tipping issues in her road; has continued with a waste collection scheme which blocks pavements; delayed in responding to her complaint.
Miss X wants the Council, as she says it has done in other areas, to provide bins for the people in the nearby properties who do not currently have them and install CCTV cameras to deter fly-tipping.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Miss X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council’s 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.
In response to Miss X’s concerns, the Council’s officers considered various options to deal with the litter and waste problems she reported. Officers visited the location to assess the possibility of changes to the Council’s collection process for properties without bins. They determined the various alternative bin options would not be feasible for those properties, including there being insufficient storage areas for bins, blocking of private vehicle and bin lorry access, and wider highways issues. Officers recognised that some residents did not comply with the times waste collection service. The Council sent letters to them to remind them of their waste collection process and said they would continue to monitor this and consider future enforcement if required. Officers installed signs to deter fly-tipping and monitored the area to decide whether they should prioritise it for CCTV. Officers also checked their records for any recent vermin reports. The latest inspection from April 2024 found no evidence of activity. The Council detailed its actions and set out the reasons for its decisions in the May 2024 complaint reply to Miss X.
There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes here to warrant us investigating. While acknowledging the situation is not ideal, officers considered Miss X’s information and gathered relevant evidence to inform their decisions on their ongoing approaches to waste and fly-tipping in the area. Those were decisions they were entitled to make. We recognise Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decisions. But it is not fault for a council to properly make decisions with which someone disagrees.
We note the outcomes Miss X wants from her complaint. But it is for councils to determine how they should provide their waste collection services. We do not have powers to order councils to change those processes. It is also for councils determine any locations in their areas which need measures such as CCTV to deter fly-tipping. Officers receive information about various locations to identify those most affected, to decide how best to use and target their limited resources. We cannot order a council to install CCTV where we or someone else would prefer it to be instead of at a location identified by officers as a more affected area. That we cannot achieve the complaint outcomes Miss X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.
Miss X says the Council promised to reply to her complaints but did not do so. There were some delays in the Council’s responses, for which it apologised to Miss X. But we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant an investigation; and we cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks; and we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman