London Borough of Barnet (18 018 519)

Category : Environment and regulation > Refuse and recycling

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 07 Oct 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to take effective action to ensure bin crews return his bins to his property and failed to follow its complaints procedure. The Council has not kept any evidence of its monitoring to show whether there is a continuing problem and has raised Mr B’s expectations about what it considers acceptable. The Council delayed responding to complaints. Those faults raised Mr B’s expectations and led to him having to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology, small payment to Mr B, a meeting with Mr B and further monitoring is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
    • failed to take effective action to ensure bin crews return his bins to his property; and
    • failed to follow its complaints procedure when responding to his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
    • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; and
    • gave Mr B and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr B first reported bin crews leaving his emptied bins outside his neighbour’s property in July 2017. The Council told the bin crew to return the bins to the point of collection.
  2. Mr B contacted the Council again on 14 February 2018, referring to it as a stage one complaint. Mr B complained the bin crew was leaving his garden bin and general waste bins outside his neighbour’s property. The Council spoke to the bin crew and agreed to monitor the situation although it did not contact Mr B to tell him that.
  3. Mr B put in a stage two complaint on 28 March 2018. The Council responded on 14 June and upheld the complaint. The Council apologised for the delay and agreed it had not told Mr B about the outcome from his stage one complaint. The Council told Mr B it had asked an officer to monitor to ensure the bin crew followed the Council’s policies.
  4. On 2 January 2019 Mr B emailed the Council to tell it the bin crew had left his bin at his neighbour’s property again. Mr B referred to his email as a stage one formal complaint. Mr B chased the Council for a response on 22 January. When he did not receive a response Mr B escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman, who asked the Council to respond.
  5. The Council responded at stage two on 3 April. The Council told Mr B it had directed its bin crew to return bins to the point of collection at all properties. The Council told Mr B the bin crew sheet had a comment on it stating they should return bins for Mr B’s property to the point of collection. The Council told Mr B an officer would monitor until it was satisfied the Council’s instructions had been followed. The Council apologised.
  6. When responding to the Ombudsman’s letter of enquiry the Council says in hindsight it believes its bin crews have not been leaving the bins at an unreasonable distance from the point of collection. The Council says it should have explained that to Mr B previously. The Council says it would like to meet with Mr B to discuss what is and is not an acceptable location to return the bins to.

Analysis

  1. Mr B says despite reporting problems with bin crews leaving his emptied bins outside his neighbour’s property the problem persists. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied Mr B began reporting an issue with bin crews leaving his bins outside a neighbour’s property in July 2017. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council has taken action given there is evidence the Council told the bin crew to return the bins to the point of collection. Indeed, that seems to have resolved the matter for at least some of the period as I have seen no evidence of reports of problems between July 2017 and February 2018 and between June 2018 and January 2019.
  2. However, the Council now says its monitoring has not identified bin crews leaving the bins at an unreasonable distance from Mr B’s property. The difficulty here is the Council has not kept any notes or photographs from its monitoring to show how it reached that conclusion. Without any documentary evidence I cannot say the Council reached that decision properly. Failure to keep records is fault. In any event, the view the Council is now taking is different to the view it has previously given Mr B. As I understand it, the Council had led Mr B to believe it expected it bin crews to return the bins to the point of collection and failing to do that was unacceptable. So, I consider the Council’s approach to this point has raised Mr B’s expectations.
  3. The Council has suggested a meeting with Mr B to discuss what is and is not an acceptable location to return the bins to. I welcome that offer. However, the Council had previously told Mr B it would carry out monitoring and it has not kept records from those monitoring visits to show its bin crews are returning the bins to an acceptable point. I therefore also recommend the Council carry out a further four week monitoring period. During that period the Council should keep a note of what its monitoring has found, with photographic evidence where possible. Then, if the Council considers its bin crews are returning the bins to an acceptable position it should communicate that view in writing to Mr B. If the Council identifies bin crews returning the bins to an unacceptable location it should liaise with the bin crew to ensure this does not happen again and carry out four weeks further monitoring.
  4. Mr B says the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure when responding to his complaint. Mr B says the Council did not respond to his first stage one complaint in 2018 and its stage two response in 2018 was not completed by an independent person. Mr B also says his stage one and two complaints in 2019 were not responded to until after the Ombudsman became involved.
  5. The Council says it previously dealt with complaints about bins by first visiting the resident. The Council says as a result it did not follow those complaints up with a written response. In this case though there is no evidence the Council visited Mr B to discuss his stage one complaint. So, while I am satisfied the Council took action by instructing the crew to return Mr B’s bins to the point of collection, I consider the Council at fault for not discussing the actions it had taken with Mr B.
  6. In terms of the stage two complaint in 2018, the Council’s complaints procedure requires the response to be sent by a senior member of staff within the service. There is no requirement for the response to be from an independent person. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for allowing the Assistant Director to respond to the complaint in June 2018. The delay responding to that complaint though is fault. I am also concerned about what happened with the complaint in 2019. Mr B put in a complaint in January 2019. There is no evidence the Council responded to that complaint until after it had been escalated to the Ombudsman. That is fault.
  7. Failure to follow the Council’s complaints procedure in 2018 and 2019 meant Mr B had to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. It is also likely Mr B was left feeling the Council did not take his complaint seriously. I recommended the Council apologise and pay Mr B £100 to reflect the time and trouble he has had to go to as well as his raised expectations as a result of the Council’s communications with him in 2018 about what it expected its bin crews to do. The Council has agreed to that.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
    • apologise to Mr B;
    • pay Mr B £100;
    • arrange a meeting with Mr B to discuss what the Council considers to be an acceptable place to return his bins to;
    • begin a four-week monitoring period to ensure bin crews are returning the bins to an acceptable location. Following that the Council should either:
      1. communicate with Mr B to tell him the location the bins are returned to is acceptable; or
      2. if the Council has concerns with the location the bins are returned to it should communicate those concerns to the bin crew and carry out monitoring for a further four weeks.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings