Summary: Mr A complains the Council failed to act when he raised concerns over his neighbours fly tipping. This caused a continuing build up of waste around his house. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for delaying acting without clear rationale. The Council has agreed to pay Mr A a financial remedy and consider service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains the Council has failed to act over his neighbour storing and disposing of waste in the shared space behind his house.
2. Mr A complains the Council has not fulfilled its duty to address the issue and been complicit in the matter, and this has had an impact on this mental health.
3. Mr A complains the Council delayed acting on the matter, and this led to a deterioration in the relationship between Mr A and his neighbours, and an increase in antisocial behaviour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered Mr A’s complaint and supporting information he provided. I also considered information from the Council. I considered comments from Mr A and the Council on draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr A wrote to the Council in July 2020 about his neighbour fly tipping waste in a shared area behind their properties. He had previously complained of the same issue dating back to 2013.
8. Mr A told the Council this had been going on for several years, and the Council had previously removed large amounts of waste from the area.
9. Mr A continued reporting the fly tipping to the Council. He alleged the neighbour was collecting and depositing large amounts of waste in the shared space as part of an unregistered business.
10. The Council disagreed with Mr A that his neighbour was fly tipping and said it could not act on waste if it was contained in a skip. It also said that it could not act on waste that was on private land.
11. Between July 2020 and May 2021, the Council visited the site multiple times and spoke with Mr A’s neighbour about the waste and the removal of it. On occasion, waste would be removed, and Mr A would alert the Council when more appeared.
12. Mr A complained to the Council that it was not taking suitable action about the waste. The Council said the issue remained under observation from the Council, and that it would take further action if needed.
13. Mr A remained unhappy with the Council and bought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

14. As part of my investigation, I have reviewed the Council’s records about the issues raised by Mr A. I have also reviewed the communication between the Council and Mr A’s neighbour.
15. The Council records show a clear, repetitive pattern of events. Mr A would raise concerns about waste being dumped, the Council would speak to the neighbour who would provide the same reason for not removing it.
16. The Council initially denied that it had a responsibility to the matter. It then sought to resolve the issue informally. The behaviour from Mr A’s neighbour continued for almost 12 months. In May 2021, the Council decided that it would need to take further action against Mr A’s neighbour.
17. The Council issued a formal notice to Mr A’s neighbour. In this notice, it cited the anti-social behaviour legislation and said that it was issuing a community protection notice under this legislation.
18. By issuing a community protection notice under the anti-social behaviour legislation, it is my view the Council has accepted it has a duty towards this issue.
19. The behaviour from Mr A’s neighbour had not changed or intensified at this point. However, there was a long period of repetitive behaviour. The records show the Council spoke to him and visited multiple times, but pattern continued to repeat itself.
20. Given the pattern of behaviour and the Council’s actions in eventually taking responsibility under the antisocial behaviour legislation, I can see no clear rationale for why the Council waited so long to act.
21. I appreciate the Council initially tried to resolve the issue informally, which was a suitable approach. However, with no clear guidance or policy applied, there is no clear rationale for why the Council did not act sooner when the pattern of behaviour continued to repeat itself.
22. By delaying acting, the Council failed to address the continuing issues, and caused Mr A and his family significant distress.
23. Mr A has been able to show that in this time, there was increased hostility between him and his neighbour, and the area surrounding his house was subject to further anti-social behaviour.
24. The delay caused by the Council was fault resulting in injustice towards Mr A.
25. Although the Council served a notice to Mr A’s neighbour under the antisocial behaviour legislation, I can see no evidence that Mr A’s ongoing concerns were considered under this legislation or considered under a community trigger.
26. Mr A also spent a significant amount of time communicating with the Council and repeatedly raising concerns. He also had to spend time bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman.
27. I have reviewed the communication between Mr A and the Council. There were several occasions where Mr A’s reports and emails were left unanswered. I understand that this led to further frustration on his part and resulted in him sending more communications to the Council than was necessary. However, I am of the view that if the Council had better handled the communication earlier in the case, there would not have been such a breakdown in the relationship between Mr A and the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within 4 weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to

• Write to Mr A and apologise for the fault identified.
• Pay Mr A £200 in recognition of the distress caused to him by the Council’s delay in taking action.
• Pay Mr A £300 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to him by pursuing the issue and bringing it to the Ombudsman.

29. Within 12 weeks of my decision the Council should

• The Council should consider how it monitors continuing reports of such issues, and whether it should be applying the community trigger to reports similar to those of Mr A.
• If the Council finds that it should be applying the community trigger to such reports, the Council should provide further training and guidance to staff handling such issues.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for delaying taking action when Mr A raised concerns about his neighbour’s behaviour. This caused Mr A injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

31. Parts of Mr A’s complaint date back to 2013. I have decided not to investigate issues before 2019. This is because 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman