Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision it could not collect waste directly from the complainant’s property. However, the Council failed to reply to the complaint without prompting from the Ombudsman, for which it has agreed to apologise. The Ombudsman has not investigated the Council’s handling of replacement bins, because the issues are too old and it is unlikely an investigation will add anything meaningful.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Mr C, complains about the Council’s waste collection. He says:

1. the Council refused to replace his general waste bin for free when it was stolen in approximately 2013;
2. the Council took too long to replace his recycling bin on several occasions when it was stolen;
3. the Council has been collecting his waste from a point some distance from his house, because of an apparent difficulty of accessing his road, but he has now been told the Council had a suitable vehicle to access his property.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated point (c). I have not investigated points (a) and (b), for reasons I will explain in the ‘Analysis’ section of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed Mr C’s correspondence with the Council
7. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr C lives in a rural area. His home is accessible only by a narrow track, which branches off a main road. Since he moved there in 2012, the Council has collected his waste from the track’s junction with the main road, approximately 2/3 of a mile from Mr C’s house, because it said its vehicles could not safely travel along the track.
9. On 12 March 2019, Mr C complained to the Ombudsman. He said his general waste bin had been stolen in approximately 2013, but the Council had refused to replace it free of charge. Instead it had been leaving black bin bags for him to use.
10. Mr C said he had complained to the Council approximately six months earlier, that he suspected another resident of interfering with his waste. The Council said it would investigate, but he had heard nothing since. The Council had also now stopped collecting his bin bags, or leaving replacement bags.
11. Mr C also said his recycling bin had been stolen on three occasions, and the Council had not replaced it promptly.
12. At that time, the Ombudsman considered Mr C’s complaint to be premature. We referred it back to the Council, for it to investigate.
13. The Council wrote to Mr C on 7 May. It said a Council officer had visited Mr C on 3 May. The officer had then spoken to the relevant waste collection crew, to ensure he received a reliable service in future. The Council would also arrange to provide him with a new general waste bin, and to place stickers on his bins to make it clear the junction was the official collection point.
14. Mr C then wrote a further complaint to the Council. He said the officer who visited him had indicated the Council had a specialist vehicle for collecting waste from farms and other remote locations, and that this vehicle could have been used to collect Mr C’s waste since he moved into his property. Mr C asked for compensation for having had to take his waste to the collection point.
15. The Council replied on 24 June. It said the vehicle to which the officer had referred was still unsuitable to access his property. In addition, the vehicle had always been known to have a limited life expectancy, and was no longer in use. The Council pointed out Mr C had agreed to the collection of his waste from the designated point, and declined to offer him compensation.

Back to top

Legislative background

Environmental Protection Act 1990

16. Local authorities have a duty under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) to collect household waste and recycling from properties in their area.
17. Section 46 of the EPA gives local authorities the power to decide certain details of the collection arrangements. This includes the type of receptacles residents must use, and the location from which collections will be made.

Back to top

Analysis

18. When he originally contacted the Ombudsman, Mr C complained about the Council’s refusal to replace his general waste bin free of charge, after its alleged theft in approximately 2013. He says the Council had provided him with black bin bags since then, but had since stopped collecting them or providing new bags.
19. After we referred Mr C’s back complaint to the Council, the Council agreed to provide Mr C with a new bin. Mr C now questions why the Council would not do this originally and complains about the inconvenience of having to use bags for several years.
20. However, I have not investigated this element of Mr C’s complaint. The Ombudsman will not generally accept a complaint about an issue which the complainant has been aware of for more than 12 months, although the Ombudsman can exercise discretion if there was a good reason for the delay. The Ombudsman must also be satisfied there is still a possible of carrying out a meaningful investigation.
21. It is unclear when exactly the Council refused to replace Mr C’s bin for free, but it is clear it was much longer ago than 12 months. Mr C raised an (unrelated) complaint with the Ombudsman in 2015, demonstrating he was aware of this organisation’s existence by then at the latest. So I see no reason Mr C could not have raised this issue with us sooner if he wished it to be investigated.
22. Even accepting this, I also do not consider it likely I can now meaningfully investigate the Council’s decision not to replace his bin. Local authorities can and do charge for replacement bins, so this fact alone does not mean there was administrative fault. And I cannot practically determine whether there was fault in its decision to do so in this case, when so much time has passed since.
23. So I have not exercised discretion to investigate this element of Mr C’s complaint.
24. Mr C also complains about delays in replacing his recycling bin on three occasions when it was stolen.
25. It is also not clear when Mr C alleges this happened. I note there is a reference in the Council’s evidence to Mr C chasing the replacement of a recycling bin in October 2018. Although this is more recent, it indicates the previous two incidents (at least) occurred before the 12-month period for the Ombudsman to investigate.
26. Further to this, Mr C did not raise the alleged delay in replacing the recycling bins as part of his original complaint to the Council in November 2018.
27. In any case, I do not consider there is anything worthwhile an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve. The fact Mr C’s bin went missing is not, in itself, fault by the Council, and it is apparent the Council has continually replaced it without charge.
28. So I have again not investigated this element of Mr C’s complaint.
29. Mr C says, during his visit on 3 May, the officer told him there was a Council vehicle which could have been used to collect from his property all along. This would have prevented him needed to transport his own waste to the junction with main road.
30. I asked the Council for details of its waste collection vehicle. It said it had a fleet of more than twenty 26 tonne vehicles, and a single 15 tonne vehicle for use with rural or other less-accessible locations. The Council said it also had an even smaller, 4.6 tonne vehicle, which it had released from service in March 2019. This appears to be the vehicle to which Mr C refers.
31. However, the Council says even this vehicle could not have been used to collect from Mr C’s property. In its letter to me, it wrote:

“Even the smallest vehicle was an HGV, 5.7 metres long and 2.00 metres wide, which would not have been able to easily or safely negotiate access along the track to [Mr C’s property]. The track in question is unmade, rutted and potholed in large parts. At this time of year it is particularly treacherous, covered as it is in leaves, especially when temperatures drop below freezing. It is narrow with no passing places and there are overhanging trees. The turning circle at the end of the track is restricted and it would only take a small obstacle to make it impossible to turn the collection vehicle round to exit.”

32. The Council also provided me with a recent photograph, showing the poor condition of the track.
33. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the Council’s adherence to procedure when making decisions. If the Council has followed the correct procedure, taken into account relevant information, and given clear and logical reasons for its decision, the Ombudsman cannot generally criticise it. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make operational or policy decisions on the Council’s behalf.
34. In this case, I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation for why it cannot collect from directly outside Mr C’s property. The Council has the power to decide to collect Mr C’s waste from the junction, and there is no administrative fault in how it has made this decision.
35. I cannot say why Mr C was led to believe otherwise. It is apparent this arose from his conversation with the officer on 3 May. It may be the officer mistakenly believed the smaller vehicle was suitable, and told Mr C this; alternatively, it may be Mr C misunderstood the officer's comment. Without an objective record of the conversation I cannot make any finding about this.
36. However, even if the officer was at fault, I would not consider this a significant point in isolation.
37. I do note the Council has a record of Mr C’s original complaint, made on 26 November 2018. It is apparent it did not reply to this until May 2019, after Mr C approached the Ombudsman.
38. I cannot speculate on the reason for the Council’s failure to respond, but I consider it fault. This left Mr C in a position of uncertainty for several months, which is an injustice.
39. However, I have been unable to find fault on the substantive matters Mr C has raised in his complaint; so I consider this to represent only a limited injustice, which would be adequately remedied by an apology.

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise for its failure to respond promptly to Mr C’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman