Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s actions in relation to incidents of fly-tipping reported by Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has repeatedly failed to clear fly-tipped rubbish from the road where he lives.
2. He says that as a result, the area looks unkempt which is causing him distress.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them.
5. In this case, the Refuse Company was acting on behalf of the Council. As a result, I considered its actions as though they were the actions of the Council.
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the Council. This included copies of Mr X’s complaints to the Council or Refuse Company.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Environmental Protection Act 1990

9. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives councils powers to require occupiers and landowners to remove waste unlawfully deposited on land (called ‘fly tipping’). Councils can investigate allegations of fly tipping in various ways such as taking witness statements, visiting the location and obtaining CCTV footage.
10. Depending on what the evidence shows, councils can decide to remove the fly tipped waste themselves or can issue formal notices requiring the person responsible to remove the waste. Councils should also consider taking action to prevent reoccurrence of problematic fly tipping.

What happened

11. Mr X lives in a flat in a social housing estate owned and managed by the Council.
12. A private company acts on behalf of the Council as its refuse collection service (the Refuse Company).
13. In January 2021, Mr X wrote to the Refuse Company complaining he had reported seven instances of fly-tipping and the Refuse Company had failed to take appropriate action.
14. The Refuse Company responded the following day to say it was struggling to access the complaints he had made about fly-tipping and it had tried to call him to discuss. The Refuse Company asked Mr X to provide more information by email or phone.
15. On 11 February Mr X chased the Refuse Company for a response saying there was still problems with fly-tipped rubbish. The Refuse Company asked him if he had responded to its previous email asking for more information. Mr X was unhappy with this response and made a formal complaint the same day. A member of staff from the Refuse Company phoned Mr X and said they would respond by 25 February.
16. Mr X called the Refuse Company on 18 February to report another issue with a damaged communal bin. A member of staff from the Refuse Company went on site the next day and found the bin was full of bricks.
17. The Refuse Company called Mr X on 24 February. Mr X said he wanted to escalate his complaint about fly-tipping to stage 2 of the complaints’ procedures. Mr X also said he wanted to make a formal complaint about a communal bin that was overfull. Whilst he was speaking to the staff member, they were disconnected. The notes record the staff member tried to call Mr X back a number of times but was unsuccessful.
18. The Refuse Company escalated Mr X’s fly-tipping complaint to stage 2. Mr X called on 11 March, to say the communal bins had now been cleared but he wanted to escalate his fly-tipping complaint further as the fly-tipped rubbish still remained. The Refuse Company visited the site and removed a number of fly-tipped items.
19. The Refuse Company responded to Mr X on 18 March. It apologised for errors in communication which resulted in Mr X making the decision to escalate his case.
20. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
21. In response to my enquiries, the Council said its neighbourhood warden team investigated Mr X’s complaint from January 2021 but was unable to take enforcement action because there was a lack of evidence identifying the fly-tippers. The Council said its team had investigated a significant number of complaints about fly-tipping in the area where Mr X lives but the team has been unable to identify the perpetrators, often because many of the items are furniture.
22. The Council said it was in the process of developing a new fly-tipping policy.

My findings

23. The Refuse Company responded appropriately to Mr X’s reports of fly-tipping, clearing the fly-tipped items when it could locate them. It contacted him for more details when it was unable to identify some of the reports Mr X said he had made. It also escalated his complaint when he requested this. It apologised for any issues Mr X had about its communications with him, such as when they were cut off. There was no fault in these actions.
24. The Refuse Company X has also notified the Council of the general issue of fly-tipping in and around where Mr X lives. The Council’s neighbourhood warden team has responded and acted appropriately by making attempts, albeit unsuccessfully, to identify the perpetrators. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman