the Council initially accepting responsibility for the damage to one of his wheeled bins during a waste collection, but then changing its decision. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council initially accepted responsibility for the damage to one of his wheeled bins during a waste collection, but then changing its decision. He says the Council has shifted the cost burden of a replacement bin back on to him. Mr X says he has spent time trying to resolve the matter and it has caused him to distrust the Council. He wants the Council to replace the damaged bin for free.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he has a recording of a telephone conversation in which an officer accepts the Council is liable for the bin damage and so would replace it for free. It is not clear which officer Mr X spoke to or what information they had before them at the time. But we accept Mr X’s evidence that during the call the officer accepted responsibility on behalf of the Council for his damaged bin.
Subsequently, other officers have changed the Council’s stance. In response to Mr X’s complaint officers assessed the information they had. The Council accepts the damage to the bin handle and lid happened when it was being emptied. It says there are no records from the crew noting the damage at the time. Officers concluded the damage was due to wear and tear, and the age and deterioration of the bin, so was not caused by the emptying process itself. The Council no longer accepts responsibility for the damage and would now require Mr X to pay for a replacement bin.
Even while accepting Mr X’s evidence, including the reported initial telephone conversation, we will not investigate the complaint. The price of a new replacement bin is about £30, £35 or £48, depending on the size Mr X requires. The cost is an insufficient significant personal injustice to him to warrant us investigating. We recognise the time Mr X has spent on the matter and the unmet expectation of a free new bin may have caused him annoyance, disappointment and loss of trust in the Council. But these impacts, plus the new bin cost, do not amount to sufficient significant personal injustice to him which justifies us using our resources to investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman