Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failings by the Council to carry out regular street sweeping where the complainant lives, as well as a failure to respond to incidents of fly tipping. Though there was fault by the Council which caused the complainant an injustice in some areas, it is unlikely that further investigation of the issues complained about would lead to a different outcome. This is because the Council has acknowledged its fault and offered an appropriate remedy which addresses the injustice suffered.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mrs V) complains about an alleged failure by the Council to maintain the cleanliness of her residential street, as well as the junction at the end of her street. Further, she says her reports of fly tipping have been wrongly closed on the basis the location is private land when in fact this is public land. In addition, Mrs V complains the Council’s handling of her complaint has been poor.
2. In summary, Mrs V says the alleged failings result in her residential area being unclean and her having to pick up litter when this ought to be role of the Council. As a desired outcome, Mrs V wants the Council to put in place a regular cleaning and fly tipping schedule. She also wants the Council to ensure its contractors are made aware of what is and is not a council land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained;
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The first part of Mrs V’s complaint relates to a lack of regular road sweeping along her residential street up to junction. She says she had previously been advised the road would be checked once a week and swept and cleared of rubbish. Mrs V complained the street had not been swept since January 2023. She subsequently made a number of reports to the Council in late 2023 that its contractor had not cleared rubbish from the street despite being told on various occassions it would be. In December 2024, Mrs V confirmed the road had been swept and cleared on rubbish, though complained this was still not being done on a weekly basis. The Council advised Mrs V that its agreement with its contractor was not based on frequency, but on a standard of cleanliness. It confirmed sweeps are only carried out when a road drops below that required standard.
6. In mid-2024, Mrs V also complained to the Council in relation to reports she had made about fly tipping either being marked as complete when there had been not action, or being marked as private land when it was actually public land. The Council acknowledges it failed to log and respond to Mrs V’s complaint. The following month Mrs V followed up on her complaint to advise the reports of fly tipping she had made had still not been actioned. The Council did not address the issue that its contractor had not cleared fly tipping on the basis of it being on private land, when in actual fact, it was not.
7. To the Council’s credit, it has fully acknowledged fault in response to Mrs V’s complaint. The Council has recognised it had not been clear to Mrs V about the road sweeping schedule and when she should expect sweeping along her residential street. Further, it accepts there had been a failure to address concerns that fly tipping reports had been incorrectly logged as occurring on a private land which resulted in a lack of action. The Council also accepts it had not followed its own complaints process with respect to the multiple reports Mrs V had made. I therefore do find fault by the Council with respect to the issues raised.
8. The Ombudsman is only required to accept a complaint however where the complainant has suffered a significant and personal injustice. This means Mrs V needs to show that as a result of a delay in road sweeping and fly tipping not being actioned, she personally has suffered serious loss, harm or distress. While I appreciate this would have been a cause of frustration for Mrs, the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Similarly, I do not consider Mrs V suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a result of the Council’s decision that road sweeping would only be carried out when this is deemed necessary. I do however consider Mrs V has suffered an injustice with respect to the Council’s handling of her reports and complaints. The Council’s lack of action resulted in excessive time and trouble for Mrs V, as well as stress and uncertainty.
9. The Council has rightly apologised and escalated the issues with its contractor to improve the service. In recognition of Mrs V’s problems and to acknowledge the frustration she has experienced, the Council has offered her a £50 goodwill payment. Taking these remedies together, I am satisfied with the outcome the Council has provided. I do not consider further investigation would lead to a different outcome, particularly given the Council has accepted failings in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline at paragraph three (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman