Forestry Commission

3. Mr P complains that the Forestry Commission has abandoned its duty of care for the upkeep of a park in the North-West of England (the park) by removing the only bin within it. He also complains that it did this without notification after originally closing the bin temporarily.

4. As a volunteer litter-picker and regular user of the park, Mr P says his enjoyment of the area has been significantly affected. He is concerned about the consequences of there being nowhere to dispose of litter and dog waste.

5. Mr P would like the Forestry Commission to work with the local council to reinstate a bin with regular collections.

6. The Forestry Commission is a non-ministerial department responsible for protecting, expanding and promoting the sustainable management of woodlands. It works with Forestry England, which manages the UK’s forests. Both bodies have been involved in Mr P’s complaint. We will use only the Forestry Commission throughout for ease.

7. Mr P is a regular user of the park. He is also a volunteer litter picker there.

8. He explains there was a bin which was used by visitors to dispose of litter and dog waste. Initially, the Forestry Commission closed this temporarily before it then removed it and flattened the area it had been located in. The Forestry Commission says it did this because of the challenges it experienced in sourcing a suitable waste removal contractor coupled with reduced staffing in the area.

9. Mr P has completed the Forestry Commission’s complaints process. He made his first written complaint to it in July 2024 with the organisation issuing its final response in October.

Lack of bin

12. When we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

13. Mr P complains that the Forestry Commission has abandoned its duty of care for the upkeep of the park by removing the only bin within it.

14. We have established that the Forestry Commission had no specific litter management policy in place at the time Mr P’s complaint arose. Since September 2025, it has had an internal piece of guidance (PPG62) to help staff comply with legislation, organisational policies and promote best practice.

15. The Forestry Commission aligns to and relies on visitors to its sites to adhere to, its Forest Code and Forest Dog Code. These are expectations the Forestry Commission has for the public. The former includes a request for visitors to take their litter with them and the latter to bag and either bin or take home their dogs’ waste.

16. PPG62 says that the Forestry Commission’s guidance for managing dog waste should be followed. This guidance came into force in January 2025, after Mr P’s complaint arose. It says that, ‘ideally, visitors will take bagged dog waste home’ but recognises this is not always done. The guidance explains that clear signage could be provided telling people what to do with this waste and says, ‘in some cases, bins can help to reduce fouling’. We note this is suggested ideas for consideration. There is no requirement for specific action.

17. We acknowledge Mr P’s concerns about the potential effect of the lack of bin provision. It is clear he, and others, have worked hard to improve and maintain its appearance for some time. This is commendable and we can see where his worry and upset comes from. Having fully considered the issue, we find the Forestry Commission has not demonstrated any maladministration in its actions. It does not have any obligation to provide bins for either general rubbish or dog waste.

18. Because there is no failing here, we will not consider this aspect of Mr P’s complaint further.

Removal without notification

19. Mr P complains that the Forestry Commission removed the bin without notification after originally closing it temporarily.

20. There is no dispute that there used to be a bin within the park. It is also accepted that this was temporary out of use before it was permanently removed.

21. Our Principles say that public bodies should do what they say and be clear about its intended actions. We are satisfied that the Forestry Commission has adhered to this in this case.

22. Mr P complained in July 2024 about the bin remaining ‘temporarily out of use’ for ‘several months’. It appears he was aware this was related to an issue with the Forestry Commission’s contract for emptying of the bin as he asked it to ‘get the [waste removal company] contract sorted’. The Forestry Commission responded and explained the issues it was having with collecting the waste. It made it clear it knew there was an issue, and it was working on reviewing the facilities to try and find an appropriate way forward.

23. Mr P was unhappy with this and continued to contact the Forestry Commission to provide updates on the situation within the park and to ask for his complaint to be escalated. In its response, the Forestry Commission was again clear about its actions. It explained its ongoing challenges in sourcing a suitable waste removal contract coupled with staffing issues were the root of the issue. It told Mr P it was continuing to work on addressing the issue but that if it was either unable to either get the local council to empty the bin or agree an appropriate removal contract by the end of October, it would remove the bin.

24. The Forestry Commission was unable to do this so, as it told Mr P it would, it removed the bin permanently in October. We note that it said it would take this action if it could not achieve either resolution by the end of that month, not that it would remove the bin at the end of the month. We can see that the Forestry Commission confirmed this in its final response to Mr P’s complaint, issued in October.

25. We recognise Mr P’s frustration with this matter. It is clear he cares deeply about the upkeep of the park and put considerable time and trouble into this in practice. We see his point about the removal of the bin and understand why he has brought this complaint to us for our consideration. Although we have not identified any maladministration in its actions, we hope Mr P is able to see why we have reached this decision.

1. We have carefully considered Mr P’s complaint about the Forestry Commission. We are sorry to hear about his concerns and his ongoing upset. It is clear he has spent considerable time and trouble in his attempts to deal with this matter both historically and currently.

2. We have seen that the Forestry Commission has no obligation to provide bins in its woodlands and that it has not demonstrated any failing in the action it decided to take. We have explained our decision below.