Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into an incident of fly tipping because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the Council’s poor communication because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council discriminated against him due to his ethnicity.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• accused him of fly tipping without evidence;
• failed to respond to his communication about the matter; and
• discriminated against him based on his name and ethnicity.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him distress.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Fly tipping

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council informed him he must remove an item that was “fly tipped” on his land.
8. The Council received information that an item was illegally disposed of. It investigated the matter and found the item was abandoned on private land that belonged to Mr X.
9. The Council investigated the matter but could not determine the person responsible for fly tipping. Therefore, it conducted a land registry search to check who was responsible for the land. It found Mr X was the owner of the land.
10. The Council is not responsible for removing fly tipped items on private land. It is the landowner’s responsibility to remove these items. Therefore, the Council wrote to Mr X and informed him he should dispose of the item so as not to cause a public nuisance.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation, and we will not investigate this complaint.

Poor communication

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s communication with him about these matters.
13. This is because, in its complaint response, the Council apologised for its poor communication. Therefore, an investigation into this matter is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome and we will not investigate this complaint.

Discrimination

14. Mr X complained the Council discriminated against him based on his name and racial/ ethnic background.
15. We cannot decide if an organisation has discriminated against someone or breached the Equality Act 2010. Only the courts can make this determination.
16. Therefore, if Mr X is concerned the Council discriminated against his protected characteristics, it is reasonable to expect him to take the matter to court as we cannot determine whether Mr X was discriminated against.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into an incident of fly tipping because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the Council’s poor communication because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. The Courts are better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint about discrimination.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman