The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a new waste collection service. This is because the law prevents us investigating something affecting most of the residents in the Council’s area. In any event, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council introduced a new waste collection service which reduced the amount of non-recyclable waste his household can dispose of. He says the Council refused his request for a larger bin without properly considering his circumstances.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended) 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Apart from residents living in flats and houses in multiple occupation, the decision to introduce a new waste collection service applies to all residents in the Council’s area who receive refuse collection. That amounts to most of the residents. Therefore, the restriction in paragraph 3 prevents us investigating.
In any event, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. The Council’s waste collection policy says it will provide a 180-litre bin for non-recyclable waste. Households of six or more can request a larger bin.
Mr X lives in a household of five residents. He says the bin he received is not large enough for his household’s waste and he wants the Council to provide additional capacity.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. It has provided Mr X with the relevant bin size for a household of five as set out in its policy and it has clearly explained this to Mr X. It is a matter for the Council to decide how best to manage its refuse services, including bin provision.
We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If, as here, we consider it followed the correct process, by deciding the matter in line with its policy, we cannot question whether it was right or wrong even though Mr X disagrees with it.
Mr X also says the Council missed a bin collection. If he wishes to pursue this, he should complain to the Council. If he remains dissatisfied with the Council’s final response, he may bring the complaint back to us and we will consider whether to investigate it.
Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint handling. If we are not investigating the substantive matter in a complaint, we will not usually investigate separately the way an organisation handles complaints and correspondence about it. This is because it does not usually cause significant enough extra injustice than the underlying matter to warrant it. That is the case here.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the law prevents us investigating something affecting most of the residents in the Council’s area and there is insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman