The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not properly advertise the discounted sign-up period for the garden waste service. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council’s publicity about the garden waste service and ‘early bird’ offer was ineffectual and unfair. She says there was a failure to deliver leaflets to all households with a garden. Mrs X wants a £18 refund as she could not sign-up during the discount period.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about the number of households getting the discount. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The Council started a new garden waste service. Between 1 September and 31 October 2021 people could subscribe to the service for £18. The standard cost is £36.
Mrs X was unaware of the discount period and did not know when the service was starting. She paid £36. Mrs X says the leaflet distribution company failed to deliver the leaflets properly and she did not see any of other publicity which she says was inadequate, especially during a pandemic. Mrs X says the Council should have put publicity material in a specific supermarket as it did in other supermarkets.
In response to her complaint the Council said leaflets were delivered to her road in September. It also explained the other ways the new service was advertised. This includes adverts in the free press, posters, leaflets in public offices, adverts on vehicles, its website, social media and digital advertising, and information at community events. The Council did not uphold the complaint and said it could not offer a refund as other people had paid the full cost after the offer period had ended.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council told me that, within Mrs X’s street, 82% of households paid at the discounted rate and 70% from neighbouring streets paid at the reduced rate. This does not suggest there was a failure with the leaflet drop as Mrs X has suggested. And, while Mrs X says the take up would have been higher than 82% if everyone had received a leaflet, she has not provided any evidence to support this statement. In addition, it is possible some people disregarded the leaflets or failed, for some other reason, to sign up early. The number of people subscribing during the discount period does not indicate a failure with the leafleting or provide sufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
The Council used a wide range of methods to advertise the new service and it is hard to see what more it could have done. The Council also had to balance the degree of advertising with the costs. It is unfortunate Mrs X had to pay the full cost but there is nothing to suggest this is due to fault by the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman