Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Maidstone Borough Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Upheld Reference 23-019-474 Sector Environment And Regulation Category Refuse And Recycling Decided 28 April 2024

View Maidstone Borough Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with the complainant’s waste collections. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response.

The complaint

The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about missed garden waste collections and the Council not separating refuse and recycling. The Council offered to extend Mr X’s garden waste subscription by two months but Mr X says this is inadequate.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and an update from the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mr X complained to the Council about some waste-related issues. This included a complaint about missed garden waste collections, that the Council was not separating the waste and recycling, and a complaint about general missed collections.

The Council explained there had been access issues which caused some missed collections. It said this had led to refuse and recycling being put into one van as only one vehicle could attend. The Council explained a new contractor was due to start in March and it would be expected to resolve the problems. The Council was not sure why there was a problem with the garden waste collections but offered a two month extension of Mr X’s subscription. This was based on the Council having a record of five missed collections between December 2023 and March 2024.

Mr X said a two month extension was inadequate. In an email in April he told the Council he had not had a collection since 9 November. Mr X wanted a five month extension. The Council declined to extend the subscription for more than two months.

In response to my enquiries the Council said that although it has a record of five missed collections, it accepts there may have been more and it cannot check the records of the former contractor. It said it will extend the subscription by four months.

I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory response. It has provided an explanation for the problems last autumn and said it expects the service to improve once the new contractor takes over. It has offered a four month extension. I appreciate Mr X asked for five months but a discrepancy over a month does not warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory response.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Maidstone Borough Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-019-245 Other
25-022-704 Other
25-010-280 Other
24-022-332 05 Jan 2026 Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to process his planning application properly, causing delay, distress and financial loss. We … Upheld
25-010-250 17 Dec 2025 Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Council tax arrears. We are satisfied with the action the Council … Other
View all decisions for this organisation