The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot have a free replacement bin. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not give him a free replacement bin. The Council told him it was responsible for the damage and said he could have a free bin but then reversed its position. Mr X wants a free bin.
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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the bin and the Council’s bin policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council charges for new bins unless they were damaged during collection and the damage has been reported by the crew.
Mr X put his bin out for collection. When it was returned it did not have the lid. Mr X checked the street but could not see the lid anywhere. Mr X assumes the bin was damaged during the collection when the bin was shaken over the lorry; he says this is the most likely cause.
Mr X called the Council. The officer said the bin was probably damaged during collection and he would not have to pay. However, the Council subsequently said the crew reported they had not found a lid in the lorry so there was no evidence the bin was damaged during the collection. The Council said the first officer should not have said the bin was damaged during the collection because they did not have access to the crew reports. The Council fed this back to the team.
The Council decided Mr X would need to pay for a new bin, or buy one that meets the Council specification, because there was no evidence the bin was damaged during the collection.
Mr X continues to assert that, on the balance of probabilities, the bin was damaged during the round.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. The Council initially gave an inaccurate response because the officer had not checked the reports from the crew. This was an error. But, the error does not mean Mr X is entitled to a free bin. Thereafter the Council responded appropriately by explaining that the initial advice was wrong and that the crew had not reported any damage which would mean he was eligible for a free bin.
I do not know what happened to the bin. Mr X may be correct in asserting it was damaged during the collection or the Council may be correct to say the bin probably broke due to wear and tear. In the absence of any independent evidence we could not determine what happened and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
The Council responded appropriately apart from the initial advice and that did not cause an injustice because the response was quickly corrected; the first response does not mean Mr X is eligible for a free bin because it was not supported by evidence that the bin was damaged during the collection.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman