The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint about fly tipping. This is because the remaining injustice to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complains about delay by the Council in responding to his complaint about fly tipped waste and that it has failed to properly communicate with him. Mr X says his dog was injured in the area and that the waste is a risk to the public.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has apologised to Mr X for failing to update him about his complaint and for the delay in removing the waste items. It explained the land is privately owned and that it has been in negotiation with the owners about keeping the area free from waste. It has advised Mr X that once a clearing schedule has been agreed with all parties, it will consider enforcement action in future if this is not adhered to. Some of the waste has been removed and the area has now been fenced off from the public.
While I recognise why Mr X has pursued this matter, I do not consider the remaining injustice to him is sufficient to warrant our involvement. The Council has apologised for issues with its complaint handling and delay in getting the items removed. While Mr X complains some items are still in situ, I do not consider this impacts Mr X to a serious degree or that our involvement would be justified on public interest grounds. In respect of the injury to Mr X’s dog, as the land is privately owned, it seems unlikely the Council could be held responsible for this. However, this is not something we could determine, as this would be a matter for the courts.
For these reasons, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the remaining injustice to him is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman