Summary: Mr K complains the Council failed to respond properly to his complaints about a street refuse collection point. He says this caused pests and fly tipping. There is no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr K complained the Council failed to properly consider the nuisance caused to residents by its street refuse bag collection point opposite his home. He said refuse was often left for days and encouraged vermin and fly tipping.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
3. 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(i), as amended).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

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. Mr K complained to the Ombudsman in April 2024. This complaint is late as Mr K was aware of the matters he complains more than 12 months before his complaint to us. However, I consider there are good reasons to investigate matters from December 2022 because this is when Mr K complained to the Council and he has pursued matters with the Council since then.
6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
7. Mr K has complained about the Council’s failure to respond to his requests for the information it holds about him (subject access requests) and about its records (Freedom of Information). This is a matter that is best referred to the Information Commissioner and I have not investigated these parts of his complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

10. Section 89(7) of The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on councils and other duty bodies to ensure their land (or land for which they are responsible) is, so far as is reasonably practicable, kept clear of litter and refuse.
11. Councils can issue fixed penalty notices (fines) for fly tipping and littering.
12. Fly-tipping is the illegal dumping of waste on public roads land or water. Councils can investigate allegations of fly-tipping by taking witness statements, visiting the location and obtaining CCTV footage.

What happened

13. In December 2022 Mr K complained to the Council that rubbish was constantly left opposite his home. The Council’s street cleaners left collected rubbish in bags and this encouraged fly tipping as people left their refuse in the same place. He said the Council had not informed residents and asked why it had decided to use this place. In his view the Council’s decision encouraged rats. He also said an elderly resident had tripped over the refuse and was injured.
14. Mr K asked the Council to review its decision. He said the Council could install a more permanent sign warning people not to leave refuse, and CCTV.
15. The Council replied that the location was a refuse bag collection point.
• It apologised if bags were not collected.
• It had asked the street cleansing manager to monitor daily bag collection.
• It was not considering CCTV because the waste left there was not dumped using vehicles. Evidence showed waste was left by local households, therefore it would not be able to identify offenders.
• It had issued 12 fines for fly tipping or littering on Mr K’s road in the last year.
• It was raising awareness of correct waste disposal procedures by attending ward assemblies, erecting signage and leafletting.
16. Mr K complained further that the Council had only fined one person a month. In his view the Council was encouraging dumping opposite his home.
17. The Council replied it had chosen this site because it was a safe and legal place for street refuse teams to stop. The Council said it had issued more fines in Mr K’s ward than most wards. It explained officers on patrol issued fines where they had found evidence or based on witness statements.
18. The Council said it already had CCTV in a road nearby. But it was unable to identify offenders as most people carried waste rather than using identifiable vehicles. It said it had erected further signs. It suggested Mr K contact its environmental crime team if he witnessed dumping.
19. Mr K complained further he had not seen any officers patrolling. In his view the signage was a mess. It referred to CCTV but there was no CCTV nearby.
20. The Council replied in February 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
• The number of warning CCTV signs was ample.
• Its environmental crime manager had visited the site. There was no evidence of a problem. However, it recognised this was only a snapshot in time.
• Fly tipping was difficult to combat, particularly as people dumped things at night. However, when it had evidence, the Council would issue fines.
• It would not move the collection point because it was a safe and legal location for its mobile team to stop and collect the bags.
• the mobile team collected the bags regularly. However, a manager would monitor the site to ensure there were no problems going forward.
21. Mr K complained at the final stage of the Council procedure in February. He said
• He did not believe the Council’s inspected in the evening or at the weekend.
• The main issue was dumping at night and the vermin this caused.
• He agreed the Council collected the refuse on occasion, but it should record collection times.
• He asked where the nearest CCTV camera was. He understood it was 2 minutes walk away.
22. In April 2023 in its final response to Mr K’s complaint the Council said:
• The location was safe for its mobile street cleansing team and the Council needed to have a place to pick up the collected waste somewhere.
• Rats and foxes were likely to be in the area with or without the collection point.
• It noted the location was used as a dumping corner, as rubbish was quickly collected, with no charge. It said the issue was the behaviour of the residents, not the Council’s actions.
• It was positive the Council had fined 12 offenders, and this would hopefully deter people.
• It did not uphold Mr K’s complaint. It was monitoring the situation and responding appropriately to reports of rubbish dumping.
23. During 2023 and early 2024 Mr K sought further information from the Council by making a subject access request about his complaints to the Council. He also continued his complaints regarding location of the collection point.
24. In 2024 Mr K complained to the Ombudsman the location was a constant dumping spot. He said a bag of rubbish was left for a week and needles and medication were left lying around. He said it caused accidents and attracted vermin.
25. In its response to my enquiries the Council said:
• It had moved the collection point in late 2023 in part due to Mr K’s complaints about its position.
• It did not have records of its patrols as it does not maintain records of this.
• Its officer visited the site in February 2023 and June 2023 and did not find any street refuse bags or rubbish.
• it provided evidence of two Fixed Penalty Notices it issued between February 2023 and October 2023 in respect of fly tipping and littering in Mr K’s road.
26. The Council has explained it is not required to consult residents regarding the position of street waste collection points.

Analysis

27. I do not consider there is fault by the Council here. The Council is responsible for street cleansing and its operatives must leave collected bags in a location for the Council’s refuse vehicles to pick up. There is no requirement for the Council to consult residents regarding the position of the position.
28. Where the Council has received reports about refuse dumped or fly tipped by people in this location, it has removed it within its timescales. The Council has provided records which show it is responsive to reports it receives, and it clears refuse within its own timescales (seven working days) and often within 24 hours.
29. The Council has issued three fixed penalty notices (fines) for fly tipping and littering in Mr K’s road between May 2023 and June 2024. I consider the Council is taking appropriate action to address the issues where it has sufficient evidence.
30. I note that the Council has now removed the refuse collection point, in part due to complaints it received.
31. In a response to a draft version of this statement Mr K said the Council had not moved the collection point because a blue street cleaner bag had been left in October 2024. The Council apologised that a bag had been left and it reminded operatives not to use the site as a bag collection point.
32. The Council carried out monitoring in November 2024 which showed the site was clear of dumped refuse.
33. In Mr K’s view the Council is still responsible for the continued use of the area as a dumping spot. However, I do not agree with this view. It does not appear that Mr K’s road is any worse than another. Fly tipping and street refuse has increased in urban areas generally.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find no fault. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman