The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council’s failure to collect Mr X’s waste was fault. However, this fault did not cause Mr X an injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains that the Council repeatedly fails to collect his household waste, including a three-month period from December 2020 when it failed to make any collections at all. Mr X also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint about the missed collections.
Mr X says he has been put to time and trouble to report missed collections and the Council’s failures cause him avoidable frustration.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with a council’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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X about the complaint and considered the information he provided.
I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Councils have a duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to collect household waste and recycling from properties in their area. The collections do not have to be weekly and councils can decide the type of bins or boxes people must use.
Mr X reported the Council frequently failed to collect his household waste. He provided video evidence which shows the Council did not empty his bin on at least three occasions during the three months from December 2020.
However, on each of these occasions, the crew did not skip Mr X’s bin. Instead, the crew member looked inside the bin and made the decision not to empty it. The Council says this is contrary to its policy, which is that crews must empty all bins, regardless of the quantity of waste. Therefore, the Council’s failure to empty Mr X’s bins was fault.
However, Mr X provided evidence that the quantity of waste the Council did not collect was very minimal on at least one of these occasions. It seems likely, therefore, that the quantity of waste was similar on other occasions, which Mr X did not film.
In such circumstances, I do not consider that the Council’s failure to collect Mr X’s waste caused him injustice.
Complaint handling Mr X also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint. In particular, that the Council appeared to accept the collection company’s assertion that Mr X had only reported three missed collections. This was despite Mr X having provided evidence, in the form of emails, of how many times he had reported the matter.
The Council’s response to my enquiries shows that Mr X reported many more than three missed collections. This is an error in the Council’s complaint response. However, I do not consider that this mistake amounts to fault. The Council says that it will remind the staff in its contact centre to ensure that it keeps proper records.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault. This fault did not cause Mr X an injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman