Summary: Mr C complained about the actions of the Council in removing five communal bins owned by the residents’ management company of his block of flats. We find fault with the time taken to respond properly to Mr C’s complaint but we consider the remedy offered is a reasonable way of resolving the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains that South Bucks District Council (the Council), without any explanation or notice, removed five communal bins (owned by the residents) from the block and replaced them with new bins. Despite initially saying there was no charge for the bins, it is now trying to charge £600 a year for the bins. Mr C says it has not offered any alternative or adequately responded to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have written to Mr C and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Household Waste Collection Policy (October 2017)

5. The Council’s policy says that the Council will not collect waste or recycling from bins not supplied by the Council. It says it will assess communal properties and provide larger bins depending on the need.
6. The Council has a statutory duty to collect waste and recycling however under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it has the right to specify the collection method and containers. It says it charges £145 per year for the provision and repair of 1100 litre steel bins.

What happened

7. Mr C lives in a communal development with shared waste bins. He also works for the residents’ management company (RMC). In 2003 RMC bought five 1100 litre bins from the Council for £750. He says the bins worked well and RMC repaired and maintained them, including fitting mesh on drainage holes to prevent rodent activity.
8. In January 2019 the Council removed the bins (now only four, due to recycling) without notice and replaced then with new ones. Initially it said there was no charge for the bins, as it believed they were owned by the Council. However, when it realised that RMC was not paying a hire charge, it sent an invoice for the bins. Initially this amounted to £92 for the period from 1 February to 31 March 2019 and £580 in advance for the following year.
9. Mr C complained to the Council on 10 March 2019, about the removal of the bins, the confusion over the charges and the subsequent invoices with no explanation or apology.
10. The Council did not register the complaint until 29 April 2019 and replied on 29 May 2019 stating the charges stood. Mr C asked to escalate the complaint on 22 June 2019, enclosing an invoice to the Council for £600 for the ‘theft’ of the bins. The Council did not reply but continued to press for payment of the invoices.
11. Mr C sent a further letter on 24 August 2019, threatening legal action to recover his invoice for £600. The Council replied by email on 5 September 2019 saying that it would return the old bins, Mr C had agreed to keep the new bins and the Council had no record of the original purchase in 2003 hence the confusion over the ownership.
12. The Council sent a letter to Mr C on 9 September 2019 confirming the above and asking for clarification over return of the old bins. It said they were damaged and no longer fit for use. It would normally expect bins to last for seven to eight years. It explained that since 2014 it had introduced charges for the provision and repair of the large communal bins. As gesture of goodwill it offered to waive the £92 charge and three months of the hire charge for 2019/2020 (£145).
13. Mr C had already complained to the Ombudsman and in October 2019 we agreed to investigate. The Council said in response to my enquiries that it removed the bins and replaced them because they were damaged and could no longer be collected. It does not normally notify users of replacement and was not aware that RMC owned the bins. It says Mr C has declined the offers it has made to put matters right and if it returns the old bins, it will not collect them as they are damaged: holes in the bottom which could attract vermin and wear to the front of the bins where they are lifted up to empty them. It has provided some photographs to support its view. It says RMC could look at private collection if it preferred.

Analysis

14. The Council is entitled to charge for the provision of larger bins and has done so since 2014. It was not aware that RMC owned the bins. Given that the bins were purchased in 2003 I am unable to conclude it was fault not to have a record of this. However, it would have been prudent to have checked the situation in 2014 when it introduced the new policy.
15. It says it discovered in January 2019 that the bins were damaged, so it removed and replaced them without giving notice to RMC. It assumed the bins belonged to the Council and a hire charge was being paid, so initially said there was no charge. Given the lack of records, the mistake was understandable but caused frustration and inconvenience to Mr C.
16. I understand Mr C disputes the level of damage to the bins. The Council operates the collections so is entitled to reach a view on this point. It has provided pictures of the bins to support its view that they were no longer usable. I cannot identify fault on this point.
17. The Council was slow to recognise and respond to Mr C’s complaint which exacerbated the frustration and led to the complaint escalating. Mr C first made a complaint in March 2019. The Council took over two months to respond and did not acknowledge the escalation in June 2019. Instead it continued to seek recovery of the disputed invoices. It was not until September 2019 that the Council acknowledged the error and offered to put it right. This delay was fault.
18. The Council has offered to return the old bins and reduced the outstanding invoices by £237. This represents 25% of the annual charge in addition to the small amount from 2018/19. Given that the residents would have needed to purchase new bins or pay the hire charge, even if notice had been given of the change, I consider this is a fair way of resolving the complaint. I have also taken into account that the old bins were 16 years old and had lasted over twice as long as the Council would expect for bins of this type.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council in the time it took to properly respond to Mr C’s complaint, but I consider its offer to waive some of the charges is adequate recompense.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman